wich is better civ 3 or4

[ChrisiusMaximus]

multiplayer civ 4 wins hands down, but civ 3 had much more appeal for me.

lots of things have been watered down too much in civ4, artillery is moronically programmed, and petty things like only so many planes in cities, and now you land in a fort instead of an airbase !

Why cant we have airbases ?

Why cant our navies bombard coastal improvements anymore ?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
!

Why cant we have airbases ?

Why cant our navies bombard coastal improvements anymore ?

I give a hearty here here as these are also a of couple examples as well, to help guide your decisions

[Theben]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Why cant our navies bombard coastal improvements anymore ?

Get Dale's combat modpack and you can.

Civ4>>civ3

[Nugog]

with

[Provost Harrison]

Personal preference? PERSONAL PREFERENCE?

Yeah, the personal preference of a ****** would be Civ 3 and the personal preference of a self-respective civver would be Civ 4

[Provost Harrison]

Oh, and BTW thread starter, it is spelt witch and not wich

And before I forget:

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, the personal preference of a ****** would be Civ 3 and the personal preference of a self-respective civver would be Civ 4

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Personal preference? PERSONAL PREFERENCE?

Yeah, the personal preference of a ****** would be Civ 3 and the personal preference of a self-respective civver would be Civ 4

Listen to this guy, he speaks the truth

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Oh, and BTW thread starter, it is spelt witch and not wich

And before I forget:

which thread starter oh great Provost Harrison?

[DrSpike]

I think you just fell for it.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I think you just fell for it.

nah, not quite............more...rolling this dead horse a little father

[Provost Harrison]

The Wicked Which of The East

[LDiCesare]

keep it or return it for the third

Keep it! I think Civ 3 is crap and Civ 4 great.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Personal preference? PERSONAL PREFERENCE?

Yeah, the personal preference of a ****** would be Civ 3 and the personal preference of a self-respective civver would be Civ 4

Damn, I miss you Richard...*sniff* *sniff*



Asmodean

[Quintillus]

Civ is a fundamentally single-player game, so getting a certain version for multiplayer isn't that great of a reason unless you know you'll be playing multiplayer a lot. It comes down to multiplayer requiring tons of time, which means coordinating the times you'll play, saving and resuming, etc. - stuff that's much easier to do between one person than between multiple people.

That said, if you'd be trading the original ("vanilla") version of Civ4 for the Complete version of Civ3, it warrants considering. Civ3 Complete has much more content than Civ4 vanilla just because it has two expansion packs. It also has far more mods available, the end result being you'll have a lot more to play with if you end up really liking Civ.

Which one is better? I think a good deal of it has to do with which one you play first. If you play Civ4 first, you'll probably think it's better, but if you play Civ3 first there's a pretty decent chance you'll think it's better. They're both good games, and if you're the type that's going to enjoy Civilization, you'll enjoy either one. There's no wrong choice here, contrary to what some people seem to think .

My personal preference is Civ3, for a number of reasons, such as:

*Greater supported map size. Particularly applicable if you don't have much computer memory (RAM), but even if you have a lot Civ4 generally has smaller maps, and thus a less epic feel.
*Changes to artillery/bombardment in Civ4. In Civ4, airplanes cannot destroy buildings in cities. Kind of inaccurate, eh? Further, artillery cannot destroy buildings or terrain improvements (irrigation, mines, etc.), ships cannot bombard anything except for city defences, and artillery are sent into battle all by themselves as opposed from bombarding to support an army as in Civ3. So fairly often in vanilla Civ4 you get whole armies of catapults or cannons, with few other troops, and they don't even bombard anything except city defences (which doesn't even destroy the buildings in the city). It comes down to Civ3 being much more accurate when it comes to how artillery generally works, as well as more fun therein.
*When you declare war on someone in Civ4, any troops you have in their territory are magically moved outside of your new enemy's borders. This was done to prevent exploitation of rights of passage - in Civ3 a common lowball tactic is to sign a right of passage, move tons of troops right outside of your rival's important cities, and then declare war - but takes it a bit far by making such betrayals impossible. And betrayals add to the fun.
*In a similar vein, diplomatic options are reduced in Civ4. In particular, you cannot trade a per-turn item, for example 50 gold per turn, for a one-time item, such as knowledge of Construction. This also was designed to fix an exploit, that of making such a deal and then declaring war so as to avoid payment, but makes trading much less potent and fun. Doing such an exploit already carried a heavy diplomatic penalty in Civ3, and eliminating reduced diplomatic possibilities considerably.

That said, Civ4 does have a few rather nice qualities that Civ3 doesn't. Amongst these are the religion system and civic system, and the ability to build War Elephants even if you aren't India.

As to the apparent preference for Civ4 at Apolyton - I don't know why Civ3 isn't that popular here. It is much more popular at the other major Civilization fansite, and the ratio of Civ4:Civ3 players, which still higher for Civ4, is considerably more balanced. So if you do decide to go for Civ3, it might be worth checking out - the Civ3 forum here is unfortunately not very lively.