Civ 3 Vs Civ 4

[Lucas]

So im playing Civ 3 on my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ windows tablet because it couldn't handle 5.

3 works like a charm so im thinking of bumping up to 4

Which is better? (I already own both)

[CHE]

Originally posted by Erminaz:

So im playing Civ 3 on my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ windows tablet because it couldn't handle 5.

3 works like a charm so im thinking of bumping up to 4

Which is better? (I already own both)

I liked Civ 3, but I love Civ 4.

[justinsane11]

ask 10 people you'll get 5 that say three 5 that say four, what'll that tell ya?

[fogglow]

Both are great games, can't go wrong either way

[shiggies713]

3 was great. To be totally honest, when I first bought 4, I installed it, tried it once and didn't play it again for a few months, and played only civ 3 instead. Once I finally got aboard civ 4 though, it is imo the greatest strategy game ever... not all by itself, but with all the maps and mods and everything combined overall, it is just fantastic.

[Quentin Trask]

I don't feel as though I understand 4 as well as I do 3, but I enjoy both.

[1230james]

Civ 4 is amazing. Obviously, it's got more advanced animations and models and graphics, etc.
Civ 3, though, is one of those games that has some kind of appeal that just keeps on bringing you back for more.

Honestly, I only got into Civ4 after Civ3 began to lag on my computer (idek how; my potato computer can run it fine). But I did enjoy Civ3 for the amount of time I ended up playing it.

One of the most drastic things you'll probably notice is that Civ4 is WAY slower. I remember playing a game of Civ4 for the first time after coming from Civ3, and I panicked because my capitol city (with ~6 people) was spending over 5 turns to build a settler or a worker. I'm pretty sure you know that a 6-person city in Civ3 could build a settler in 4 turns or something.

There's also no advisor heads, something that every Civ game after 3 lacks (besides 5, but those were trash, and no one used the advisor screens anyway). Leaderhead appearances also don't change based on era (4000 BC, you've just learned how to build fires, and you're wearing a suit). Speaking of eras, there's no distinct eras in the Civ4 tech tree, making it kinda hard to judge where everyone is. In theory (and I've seen it in practice from my friend), you could be developing nuclear missiles without even understanding what steam engines are, since there's no "complete all these techs first before you proceed to the next era" restriction like there is in Civ3.

Combat isn't as heavily RNG-based in Civ4, though, making it a lot more balanced. It also, obviously, has a lot more features. Civics replace governments to let you fine-tune your administration to exactly how you want it Finally, communism where I can pay people to work instead of whipping them to death.. There's more wonders to build. The UN now does more than enable diplomatic victories. Religion is a thing now. You can actually see why leaders are happy or pissed towards you if you hover your cursor over their name. There's unique buildings for Civs now in addition to the traditional unique units. And the list goes on.

The one of the only huge downsides is that Civ4 modding can get kind of hectic. There's no Editor for Civ4 that does the same thing as the Civ3 Conquests Editor, but you don't really need one since you can do a lot of work with a basic text editor as most of the mods you'll likely install are XML-based, or something Python-based. The real issue comes with DLL mods, where it changes the DLL file Civ4 uses to know what to provide in-game. Basically, modding the DLL allows you to change how the game itself runs, and there's lots of mods out there that change the DLL to do amazing things. The only issue is that trying to merge multiple DLL mods into one DLL is a pain in the ass for someone who doesn't really know what they're doing (like myself), which would leave out a whole sector of mods to choose from. Obviously none of that matters if you don't mod at all, use someone else's mods, or if you just want to install new leaderheads, units, buildings, etc. that only need new art files and XML edits.

The other huge downside to Civ4 is that Civ3 Complete comes with both PtW and Conquests bundled up for you for one purchase, so anyone who buys Civ3 through Steam will always have the expansion packs. Civ4, on the other hand, has Civ4, Warlords, and Beyond the Sword as separate items to purchase. Just because you buy Civ4, it doesn't exactly mean you can play with all the other players. Some people might want to play on only BtS, or some might only play on Warlords. Or maybe you only want to play on BtS, but your friend only has vanilla Civ4. But then you have to remember that a lot more people play Civ4 than Civ3 these days (I think), so if playing with strangers isn't an issue for you, or if multiplayer at all doesn't matter, then you can disregard all that.

imo, though, Civ3 and Civ4 are both games that are fun to play. I definitely would go back and forth between them (but I can't because of that lag issue I mentioned), since both games have something to offer that the other doesn't. Just buy the games during a sale (Civ3 for $1.24? Heck yeah!) and you'll have no regrets.

[Eauxps I. Fourgott]

In my opinion, Civ 4 is WAY better. I find it improves on a lot of aspects of Civ 3 such that going back (especially right away) can be quite hard to stand:

-No corruption. While city maintenance isn't exactly super fun either, I always found uselessly corrupt cities to be quite frustrating.
-City improvements don't cost maintenance.
-Research and production has overflow so that you don't have to micromanage to avoid waste.
-Diplomacy makes sense and you can understand why the AI is behaving a certain way.
-No AI armies running through your territory without ROP all the time.
-Certain parts of the mechanics (such as tech cost in beakers) are more transparent, allowing for better strategizing.
-UN is much much much more interesting and strategic.

There's a bunch of other things as well, but I hope you get the picture. Civ 3 can still be fun once in a while - I'm actually going through a couple games of it right now - but it hasn't had the lasting appeal it once did since I got Civ 4. So I think Civ 4 is definitely superior.

(Although it does tragically scrap the mechanic where leaders' appearances change as they go through the ages. When going back to Civ 3 that was honestly what I found I missed most.)

[susannag]

I, personally, prefer 4 to 3.

[Claffo]

3 has an awkward lower resolution requirement whereas 4 just works, seems to me like 4 is very similar to 3 just with more quality of life improvements. I do still love 3 though.

[mrsnot57]

Civ3 is fun: but civ4 is open to modding in a way civ3 isn't (unless something amazing has happened), for example all the AI ever did was find an excuse to declare war on you. Civ4 is far more flexible - anything you want to change, you can probably change (although there are limits: say, having two features on a plot). I miss civ3 a lot because it was so simple and had lots of fun fan art created for it - rocket-launching panda bears anyone? Zombies? Civ4 is a lot more po-faced, but has far greater levels of complexity.

[Menkerot]

4 is better but 3 has its own charm