Civ 4, is it better when all is said and done?

[Kalfear]

So finally got civ 4 working a month or so ago and have made it to noble level (that I can win at).

 

But Im really starting to think Civ 3 was the better game.

 

Now granted, I love having the religions and all that, thats a nice new addition. But Im finding that building units kinda less important in civ 4 as you can breeze through to tanks and mech inf so easily.

 

basically if you can survive the barbarians early on, get to muskets (for defence) and knights (for offence) you have won.

 

Civ 3 was much more detailed and getting those newer techs were more difficult (or fealt so anyways).

 

Also the limitations placed on you early on in expanding I find annoying in Civ 4, I much prefered the old system of needing at a minimum, 3 pop in a town before you could build a settler.

 

Im just not sold Civ 4 is a better game, graphically yes, has some new ideas and concepts that are appealing, but over all game wise, I just dont think so.

[alanschu]

I think the only reason why it took you so long to get the later techs in Civ 3 is because in the later parts of the game, each turn took so much longer.

 

 

To be honest it sounds like you're playing against the AI at a less than intense difficulty level.

 

 

I think Civ 4 is much better than Civ 3.

[Llyranor]

Coop makes all previous Civs irrelevant.

[alanschu]

Heh, no contest if you compare MP.

[Darque]

Yuck

 

Sounds like Sid keeps losing his touch

[alanschu]

Sid didn't make the game, though most "civfanatics" prefer Civ 4.

 

The only ones I've seen that do not like Civ 4 try to play Civ 4 as if it is Civ 3.

Edited February 4, 2006 by alanschu

[Llyranor]

Yeah, from the civfanatics forums, it seems - as a whole - those who preferred 2 to 3 like 4, but those who preferred 3 don't.

[alanschu]

Heh, do you lurk on their forums as well?

[Darque]

Sid didn't make it?

 

I'm surprised it's not better :D

 

I've had no faith in Sid since playing Alpha Centauri (which was thankfully sid-less)... and then the hideous Civ 3.

[alanschu]

Sid is managing the entire studio of Firaxis I believe. Though I think he had "final say" on anything to make sure it kept an appropriate Civ style of gameplay.

 

He really liked the innovations IIRC.

 

 

 

I thought Alpha Centauri was a Brian Reynolds/Sid Meier co-op project?

Edited February 4, 2006 by alanschu

[Darque]

I was under the impression it was all Brian Reynolds and only had Sid's name on it.

[alanschu]

According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer.

[Pidesco]

Yeah, from the civfanatics forums, it seems - as a whole - those who preferred 2 to 3 like 4, but those who preferred 3 don't.

 

 

What about those that think that Civ1 is the best of the first three civs?

[Llyranor]

Heh, do you lurk on their forums as well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, just occasionally, really.

 

Haha, guess who's having a 4-player civ4 session without you right now

Edited February 4, 2006 by Llyranor

[Darque]

According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Curious.

[Pidesco]

According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer.

 

Curious.

 

 

I don't have the manual here with me, but I think there's a text written by Brian about the development of Alpha Centauri in it that describes the involvement of Sid in the creation of the game.

[Darque]

I'll dig up mine and check it out

 

If I can remember where I put it

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm taking a break from all things Civ at the moment. In a few months, I'll feel a civ urge once again, but will it be for Civ 3 or 4? I'd guess 4, but only time will tell which has the greater staying power.

[alanschu]

Heh, do you lurk on their forums as well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, just occasionally, really.

 

Haha, guess who's having a 4-player civ4 session without you right now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Noooo, I'm still at work!!

[Enoch]

IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3. The removal of pollution and corruption alone (replaced by health and city maintenance, respectively) put it over the top. Also, the better tech tree and more varied infrastructure improvements both take what used to be mechanistic decisions and make them interesting. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet (need to hone my skills further first), so I can't talk about that.

 

Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway.

[Nick_i_am]

IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3.

 

 

 

Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but  I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly.

 

Civ3 just wasn't fun.

[Llyranor]

That 4-player session rocked.

 

Stupid freaking raging barbarians

[Jumjalum]

Civ 4 plays a lot better on Epic speed, it gives each unit time to be useful rather than being obselete by the time you've got a decent number on the battlefield.

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, pretty much, 'quick' was good for learning the ropes, but it's epic all the way now baby.

[Enoch]

Civ 4 plays a lot better on Epic speed, it gives each unit time to be useful rather than being obselete by the time you've got a decent number on the battlefield.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree. I find Epic too slow; Standard works fine for me. It took me just over 16 hours of game time to win a Standard SP game (my first Monarch level win :D ) last week-- I don't need it to last any longer than that!

 

As for units going obsolete, I did notice that when I first started with Civ4, but it doesn't bother me anymore. I think that ratcheting up the difficulty level helps slow down the science (AI is more aggressive, and you have increased research costs). Plus, I'm not the type of player who often builds large invasion forces. I'm more of an opportunistic warrior-- grabbing a city or two from a rival when I have a momentary advantage and then suing for peace in exchange for some nice goodies.