Improvements of Civ IV over Civ III

[RGBVideo]

CIV is balanced much better than CivIII.

CIV

It's either "cIV" (even at the start of a sentence) or "Civ4". "CIV" is the original Civilization, from 1991.

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.

No. You need combined arms tactics from the ancient age because of the rock/paper/scissors -strategy where only spear units are good against mounted units and only axe units good against melee units et cetera.

I play more 3 than 4 truth be known.

My guess is that you've grown used to exploiting the game in the way you were forced to in order to survive in CivIII and are bitter that the exploits don't work anymore in cIV

[drsparnum]

Nothing against Civ 3 and all, but I can think of quite a few things but here are my top 3 choices, in order:


1. Maintenance cost, instead of corruption. In Civ-3 I found expansion became unfun.

2. Wide variety of possible worker improvements around a city increase the strategy of city specialization.

3. Wide variety of unit promotions.

[padillah]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
...but to me smac was boring, nowhere near as historically realistic and interesting as civ3.

I'm sorry. Are you honestly refering to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as not being historically accurate?

Is this based on the last time we went to ALPHA CENTAURI?!?!

That's not to mention that, other than the fact that some (not even all) of the leaders did actually live, there is no real history in Civ. You make it up.

The Arabians did not build the Great Pyramids but I do it all the time in Civ.

"Historically Accurate" SMAC

Tom P.

[Arrian]

For the record, I loved CivIII, despite its warts. Actually, I thought that fully-patched PTW was the best iteration of that game. Conquests had some cool stuff, but wasn't balanced (PTW wasn't either, but was much better in that regard).

Civ4 isn't perfect, but it's certainly the better game. There are pet peeves I have about it (I hate the graphics), but yet I play it constantly and never touch CivIII anymore.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Civ 4 > Civ 3 > SMAC

[Nikolai]

Eeeer.... More like Civ4 > SMAC/X > Civ3

[Arrian]

Shush, you. Next thing you know, you'll wake the CtP'ers.

-Arrian

[Son of David]

Originally posted by VJ


It's either "cIV" (even at the start of a sentence) or "Civ4". "CIV" is the original Civilization, from 1991.

Quiet in Finland these days, eh?

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Civ 4 > Civ 3 > SMAC

I have to agree with this view. Although Civ4 is far superior to Civ 3, I did like Civ 3 and would occasionally come back to play a game of it now and then after about four months of playing it exclusively when it released. I also liked Conquests and the scenarios in there quite a bit (especially the Pacific WWII scenario- very cool).

I also played SMAC a few times way back when, but I never really got into it as much as the various civ games. I am not sure why, but something about SMAC was just kinda boring. Maybe it was that the factions did not really seem balanced, or the AI wasn't really much of a challenge, I do not really remember why I didn't embrace it, but I do not think I got through more than 8-10 games of SMAC before shelving it. I never had any interest in trying the sequel, either.

For Sci-Fi wargames, I guess I prefer the space operas such as the Master of Orion series, Space Empires, and to a lesser degree Galactic Civilization (although the lack of multiplayer in this title kind of ruins its long-term appeal). Sci Fi games that are only played exclusively on land such as SMAC and Deadlock just do not excite me for some reason.

[Nikolai]

SMAC's sequel? SMAC didn't have any sequel. Perhaps you think of CtP?

[Petek]

Originally posted by Nikolai
SMAC's sequel? SMAC didn't have any sequel. Perhaps you think of CtP?

Perhaps he refers to Alien Crossfire, the expansion pack to SMAC.

[Nikolai]

Might very well be.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by MasterDave


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

Yeah, but Civ4 units can be promoted for more specialization.

Better music in the modern era in Civ3. The Civ4 music in the modern era really bites IMHO

People still listen to civ music?!?!

One more advantage for civ3: trading. The ability to trade immediate things for per turn things adds a lot more flavor to the game.

[Jaybe]

One more advantage for civ3: trading. The ability to trade immediate things for per turn things adds a lot more flavor to the game.

EXPLOIT!!
I am much happier with Civ4's way of doing it.

[Nikolai]

Me too.