Is it really different enough?

[Gutz]

Puitting the graphics aside is the game itself really different enough to be worth the purchase? I loved Civ III and want to get Civ IV but from what I have seen its not really that much different - opinions please!
Thanks in advance

[Fosse]

It is unquestionably different. Much different. So far I consider those differences to all be improvements, but I've only played about four games.

Expansion is harder, more fun, and ultimatly more rewarding. Combat is a blast, and you can wage a war with only a handful of units per side no matter the age.

Diplomacy is much more interesting.

The resource game is expanded and more interesting.

The endgame is the most fun I've ever had... each time the AI has been very competive without doing crazy things like ganging up. I've lost all my games to AI spaceships despite working as quickly as I could toward UN election or my own spaceship.

[Skoll]

Combat is a blast, and you can wage a war with only a handful of units per side no matter the age.

Based on my 5 or so games I have to completely disagree with that statement. The AI keeps 8+ of the highest technology militiary units it has the tech for in all of its best cities.

You need a massive invasion force to kill them all quickly, and if you don't get them in a turn or two, then he streams in reinforcements from neighboring cities. With no zones of control he can walk right by your armies unless you completely surround the city which requires 8 stacks of combined offensive/defensive units.

With the increased requirement for artillery to soften cities you are also looking at needing at least 3 types of units for any good offensive: 1) arty, 2) offensive - good bonuses against the units you are killing, 3) defensive - good bonuses defending the tiles you are on or the city itself once capped.

Then once flight is invented you need to add air intercept units to that mix or you'll just get peppered to death while amassing...

I'm probably doing something wrong, but I find that war takes waaaay more units than I remember from previous civs.

[BigWilly1974]

You could probably make the same argument for every step in the Civ series then...from 1 to 2...2 to 3...

Here's what I like about Civ IV and why I think it's worth the purchase.

Welcome to the 21st Century in graphics (really, how much longer could you play Civ 3's graphics?)

Gone are the days of 30-40 city empires and a thousand troops. In Civ IV, armies are much smaller, and cities much more valuable. In other words, they are much more difficult to take, and you have to be more judicious when using troops as you don't have another 100 units to throw into the breach. (it also means you don't have a million troops to micro-manage in late game, which to me really bogged Civ 3 down).

Civics and Religion add a whole new dimension to adapt to.

Diplomacy is so much better.

There are a number of other things that justify the purchase. My first day or two, I thought...hmmm....more of the same, with better graphics. But I'm already starting to appreciate all the differences now that I've had it a week.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think it takes more units, but it definitely requires a bigger variety of units. From getting beaten up in my first games, I've learned to not even attempt to attack a city without at least a few seige weapons, a few anti-seige units (to keep your stack from getting knocked out), and some strong attackers to take the city itself.

But overall, yes, the game is definitely different enough, in both strategy and game mechanics.

[vmxa1]

Yes it is a lot different than III. As to combat you get some against barbs right away. Even scouts can at time survive lion attacks.

May as well get it and jump in.

[Martinus]

One of the main changes from Civ1-3 to Civ4 for me is a visible attempt on behalf of the developers to change no-brainers into strategic choices.

Take terrain improvements for example. In previous Civs you were left with 1-2 choices on each tile, that were pretty standard - so irrigation on plains and grasslands, mines on hills, roads everywhere. The chief concern was to get as many workers (or earlier, settlers) as possible to do it.

Now, even not counting all the special improvements to collect resources, you have a plethora of strategically important options, that matter both short term and longterm. Have a flood plain on a river bank? You have to decide whether to farm it (a'la Civ 3 irrigation) or put a watermill there for bigger production (and special bonus in State Property - so you better choose that Civic too), or make a cottage there and wait some time to have it grow into town, giving a hefty commerce bonus (and even more bonuses under Universal Suffrage and Freedom of Speech). Likewise, on hills you can either go for a windmill and extra food or a mine for extra shields. And on both you can also build a workshop for extra shields but less food. Add to this a fact that some technologies and civics increase the bonuses from various improvements and you have even more choices - whether to start with farms and towns, but industrialise with mills and workshops once you hit replacable parts, electricity, engineering or state property? Or whether to go all the way with towns and be a commerce-rich, but not very productive empire, that just buys all improvements.

[Martinus]

Also technology works differently, especially when it comes to researching new units.

Many techs can be reached via various ways (e.g. you can go to Monarchy from either Code of Laws or Priesthood) which means you can leave certain techs behind, especially "dead end" ones, like archery or horseback riding. At the same time, certain units require not one but more technologies to build - for example you can reach feudalism without researching archery or horseback riding, but if you do it that way, you will be only able to build pikemen, and not longbowmen (need archery for that) or knights (need horseback riding for that).

This also means you can have a very advanced civilization that never had - or never knew how to create - a single horse-riding unit (a'la Aztecs).

[Martinus]

double post

[MoRtAl]

You are.


The key is to attack the moment you get a better unit than the AI.

While you do need arties and defenders like you said, it is important to press the adavantage when your offensive or defensive units are better than the enemy.

This way, you can get rank promotions. High level promoted units can steamroll a large amount of weaker, level 1 units.

It's all about timing, and less about just massing units this time around.

[civ4dan]

Absoltely worth it!

Religion aspect of the game is fun (though Judaism with missionaries, while needed for game balance, is not realistic)

I like that you can airlift settlers and you can airlift to sitties without airports.

I like the new terrain enhancements.... windmills are a nice option for hills that dont have resources in city squares that dont have a lot of farmable land (or if you want some more food in general)

The actual game play is similar to Civ III so you can jump right in and learn as you go. In fact, I won a diplomatic victory the first time.

I do like the diplomatic victory as well. Getting the UN, the first election you have is to be Secretary General not to win the game. If you win that, you control what resolutions are passed.. if any. Its not absolutely urgent that youg et the UN as it was in CIV III.

There are more plusses as well.

[Gutz]

Well I guess I know what I will ask my wife to get me for my birthday now! I feel the CIV bug coming back....... More opinions would be appreciated too - it is nice to see it overwhelmingly in favor of it being improved though!
Thanks all,
Chris

[Solver]

It appears that one thing virtually everyone in the community agrees on is that Civ4 is quite different. Whether you like the changes is, of course, ultimately only up to your preferences, but there can hardly be any doubt that this game is different.

[Nikolai]

Three words: But. It. Now.

[wilebill2]

Different. I like it. Your mileage may vary.