Improvements of Civ IV over Civ III

[Smeagol]

I've had Civ III on my laptop for a long time, but never really had the time to play it until now. I am also downloading the Civ IV demo for my main computer. Before I get too deeply into Civ III, can anyone tell me the advantages of Civ IV over Civ III, or direct me to a site/thread that includes this info? Many thanks.

[Ennet]

there are some good reviews on: http://civilization4.net/3/169/

[molly bloom]

You lose a second and third eye, but gain a V for Victory.....

[Nikolai]

Scrap Civ3 and get Civ4, it's the easy.

[johnmcd]

Yeah, to me, four is better than three in every single regard.

[Smeagol]

I can't check review sites from work... for those who have said it, can you elaborate on what makes Civ IV so much better than III?

[Arrian]

Off the top of my head:

CIV is balanced much better than CivIII.
There are lots of valid paths to victory. Strategic choice and all that.
Religion is a cool addition.
Great People are cool and yet pretty balanced.
Maintainance costs instead of corruption Waaay better, IMO.
Civics instead of governments. Makes for more interesting choices.
Terrain improvements are more diverse (see: cottages, windmills, watermills).
Less tech and map trading by the AI (no tech trading until Alphabet, which takes a bit to get to, and no map trading until Paper, which is medieval).
The AI, while still far from brilliant, is better.

Things you might miss:

No military great leaders (until the expansion comes out) and thus no massively overpowered Armies like in CivIII

UUs are, for the most part, not hugely powerful. The Roman Praetorian is perhaps the one that is. But most of them are not game-breakers.

Golden Ages are less powerful. Then again, you can have more than one.

Artillery units do not blast the bejeesus out of units on another tile. You can't do that until you get Bombers. Catapults, et. al. can reduce city defenses and they can attack, which cause splash damage but also can result in the loss of the artillery unit (they have a retreat chance, or they might win). It's a little odd. But it works, IMO.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by johnmcd
Yeah, to me, four is better than three in every single regard.

Except system requirements

[Nikolai]

But those are much better with the latest patch. Pre 1.61 I had huge problems running the game on other than small worlds, but now I can use the large maps without problems (well, I haven't tried the largest around, but the next largest works just fine).

[Solver]

I would put it briefly so:

Civ III has some cool concepts, but very flawed execution. Ultimately, the problem of Civ3 is a complete lack of strategic depth. Civ4 is much better balanced and much, much deeper strategically.

BTW, on the technical side, Civ4 performs better for me than Civ3 .

[rjwoer]

Yes I agree Civ 4 is more balanced. That's a good way of putting it. And far more complex in the good, replayability way.

Another simple but huge difference for me is the fact that maps are always different in Civ 4. In Civ 3, I started to get a feel for the maps and remember the lay of the land even if I couldn't see it, because I'd played the game so many times.

I had a ton of fun with Civ 3, but since Civ 4 is available why go with anything else?!

[RGBVideo]

Single player is much more fun in cIV than in CivIII. AI acts much less predictably now in the gamefield. You actually can presume that your AI allies stay loyal for the whole game if you're loyal to them now.

[LordShiva]

Allies are for hippies

[Ennet]

Originally posted by VJ
Single player is much more fun in cIV than in CivIII. AI acts much less predictably now in the gamefield. You actually can presume that your AI allies stay loyal for the whole game if you're loyal to them now.

depends what leader you chose to ally, tbh..

[Nikolai]

LS, what is it with you and hippies?

Ennet: Indeed. I was allied to one of the bad guys(personality speaking), don't remember who, and was backstabbed in the modern age. It came from the sky, totally unexpected. Here I had helped the SOB throughout the ages, given him gifts and good deals, and then he backstabs me... I was lightly defended at the border too, I was more into building up the borders to my enemies. I though.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Oops I actually preferred the artillery from Civ3, I liked the way you had to protect your guns and that they could be captured.

Guns were always at risk of being captured and used by an enemy, catapults, cannons etc, i think it was more realistic the way civ3 did it

[Solver]

Which is where the problem lies. Civ3 may have had more realism in some areas, and it *killed* strategic depth. Civ3 artillery: build a lot. Use to bombard all enemy units down to 1 HP. Attack, and win. The problems: first, it's the most powerful tactic by far, so it becomes the only one ever used. Second, after your first buildup, you'll wipe out entire civs with losing almost no units, which makes the entire balance of the game screwed up.

Civ3 had a lot of similar screwups. I'd say that one or two are enough to ruin all the strategy in the game, but Civ3 had more.

[Smellycowsquid]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Allies are for hippies

not again...

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Ah well each to there own, I like civ4, but I feel civ3 was a great game, and civ4 whilst a great game also has left behind some good aspects of 3.

Most of my civ3 games were PBEM and there you did not often get a chance to use the strategy that you mention, though i will agree it was very easy to destroy AI with lots of artillery.

Yes maybe it needed some attention, but i think it has changed too much and has lost some value.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Solver
Which is where the problem lies. Civ3 may have had more realism in some areas, and it *killed* strategic depth. Civ3 artillery: build a lot. Use to bombard all enemy units down to 1 HP. Attack, and win. The problems: first, it's the most powerful tactic by far, so it becomes the only one ever used. Second, after your first buildup, you'll wipe out entire civs with losing almost no units, which makes the entire balance of the game screwed up.

Civ3 had a lot of similar screwups. I'd say that one or two are enough to ruin all the strategy in the game, but Civ3 had more.

Actually, I agree with you on the value of artillery in civ3, but the funny thing about that game was that I would capture so many catapults, cannons, and artillery during the course of the game, that I often would have a huge stack of artillery in the end game without building a single one myself.

Civ 4 has many improvements over Civ 3, but the biggest improvement, as mentioned several times, is strategic depth and a variety of paths to victory. Every game of civ 3 more or less played the same, just the names of the countries changed. Also, multiplayer in civ4, while not perfect, is viable and FUN and has been since launch.

Aside from depth and good multiplayer gameplay, some of the smaller elements that have improved:
graphics
religion being added adds many new strategic options
more resources on the map
better feedback on the diplomacy screen, the AI behavior makes more sense
worker automation works better
no more pollution whack-a-mole!!!! (this really killed the civ3 end game for me)
no more ICS to win every time
pacing is better. The endgame does not drag nearly as much as civ3 with its 5000 units to move around during every 30-minute long turn
nice variety on maps- more customizability

A couple of things that Civ 3 does better:

more variety of military units (admittedly I am including civ3's expansion packs). Hopefully warlords will improve on this
Better music in the modern era in Civ3. The Civ4 music in the modern era really bites IMHO

I have been playing civ4 quite a bit since it was released and still enjoy it quite a bit eight months later. You will certainly enjoy it if you like the older Civ games.

[Solver]

more variety of military units (admittedly I am including civ3's expansion packs). Hopefully warlords will improve on this

In Civ3 vanilla, I nevre really felt this. I wouldn't use the different units. For example, mass Cavalry did very well in their time, without the need for anything else. Unless you went the mass-arty route.

[Dis]

I miss massive overpowered armies.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by MasterDave
Better music in the modern era in Civ3. The Civ4 music in the modern era really bites IMHO

I cannot believe that you said that! I hated the Civ3 modern music!

After playing Civ IV for any amount of time, Civ III becomes unplayable, in my opinion. The game is easier to play, harder to exploit or master, more polished, more exciting, and much more interesting. The AI is signifigantly better than Civ III's, and the "cheats" that it uses in Civ IV do not spoil the game in the same way that I felt III's did.

Diplomacy is much more interesting, as nations tend to form blocs and the player is often in a position where he has to choose to align himself with one bloc or another. The resource trading game and religion aspects of the game subtly and interestingly impact single player diplomacy. Civ III diplomacy was, for me, usually a chore.

Also, the one thing I haven't seen anybody mention on this thread yet is a big one: Civ IV is MUCH more mod-friendly than Civ III was. There are lots of interesting mods for Civ IV, that do everything from make aesthetic or interface changes without impacting gameplay, to gigantic and far-reaching alterations to the game and its core rules. If you want true stacked combat, more units, more governments, rebellions, civil wars, new types of random maps, or just a fancier and more handy foreign advisor... you got it.

Civ IV is a masterpiece compared to Civ III. I knew Civ III would never live again on my harddrive after a month or two of playing it. I now doubt that Civ IV will ever be uninstalled... finally something to keep SMAC company after all of these years.

[OzzyKP]

I think I've blocked out CivIII, I don't remember enough of the game to compare, heh.

[Dis]

I actually did like Civ3's modern age music.

But I prefer Civ4's.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by Dis
I actually did like Civ3's modern age music.

But I prefer Civ4's.

I think the Modern Age music could have used Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue.

So I modded it into the main game myself.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

all this negativity to civ3, you know many liked the game, I liked and indeed still do.

I play more 3 than 4 truth be known.

Was it not a necessary evolutionary step toward civ4 ? many things were new and improved in three, and quite a few things were dropped from 2. Its obvious that 4 is liked by a greater number of this community than 3 was, but that does not mean civ3 was a bad game.

I see many references to smac now having a true companion on hardrives etc, well call me a heathen but to me smac was boring, nowhere near as historically realistic and interesting as civ3.

I really have nothing against civ4, Ive had many hours of fun playing it to date, and Im sure the XP and other XP's thereafter will only improve the core game and add depth, but for now for me its a litle light stood next to conquests. I had much the same experience with 3 over 2, i played on for a while with civ2 until civ3 finally got me hooked.

One thing i will say however is the civ3 modern music really gets on my nerves, i always sxitch it off in my games when i reach it, civ 4 does do music a little better

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Originally posted by Solver

more variety of military units (admittedly I am including civ3's expansion packs). Hopefully warlords will improve on this

In Civ3 vanilla, I nevre really felt this. I wouldn't use the different units. For example, mass Cavalry did very well in their time, without the need for anything else. Unless you went the mass-arty route.

You can say the same about Civ4 Its very easy to mass build a particular unit in fact easier with the lack of options over civ3.

I always used the various units in civ3 found it more fun that way.

[Son of David]

CIV brings back spy UNITS which can be moved around and used to blow up improvements! They can also examine cities (incl. production, what civ is researching, units in a city, hammers and gold produced etc) without cost.

CIV has late-game United Nations!

However, CIV removes cruise missiles, tactical nukes, and adds severe global warming and SDI.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think I've blocked out CivIII, I don't remember enough of the game to compare, heh.

Me too... the only thing I remember is that in Civ III the turns at the end of the game on a large map, could take 10-15 minutes, while on the same computer in Civ IV the AI's turn time has been cut down to 5-10 sec

The only times it takes a long time to finish the AI turn is, when I'm at war with a civ with a huge naval army... why is it that the AI always has to move all their ships, even though they only move them in circles?