Civ 2/3 vs Civ 4

[dagorkan]

Civ is supposed to have so much more than Civ3, the same game with improvements... religion, corporations, a more complex combat model, more terrain types, way more wonders, units and buildings, more maximum players, auto-management, a better growth model (health + food), a better revolt model, easier to manage cities, Great Persons, inflation, multiple unit types (recon, animal, heroes), dynamic trade routes, etc, etc, not to mention graphics and sound.

So, why is it I'm going back to Civ3? Why am I even considering going back to Civ2: ToT? I can't think of any logical reason but I am. After a dozen or so games of which I completed three or four and trying a half dozen mods (Rhye's and Fall, The Ancient Mediterranean, Fall from Heaven, Gods of Old, etc), I find Civ 4 boring the hell out of me.

What did Civ4 get wrong? Is it just that turns take way longer to process, or that the screen scrolls slowly because of all the animations?

I am actually currently downloading "Lord of the Mods"for Civ3: Conquest which looks more interesting than any mod I saw for Civ4. Actually Civ3 has way more mods full stop. Half the Civ4 ones are shitty attempts at historical simulation. I thought I would get Colonization 2 but now I'm not at all sure.

Or is it just me?

I'm finding it's the same feeling I got a few hours into playing UFO:Extraterrestrials... it should have been better, it should have been the same good gameplay left alone with minor improvements I knew about in advance and thought were positive, but it lacked soul.

Anyone else feel like that?

 

[JarlFrank]

It's probably 3D graphics, they generally lack the charme of 2D.

 

[spectre]

I don't know about Extraterrestrials, the mods allegedly make it more bearable, but it seems they kinda lost the good ole ufo along the way.
Back to Civs, though.

As for Civ4, I kinda agree with most that you say. Some of the additions look like they're there just to take up space, like all these corporations, great people, corporations etc. etc. I must say I like them all individually, but come together, some of them feel like too much. You know, too much to micromanage, add spies into the mix and there you have it.
If I were to compare the complexity of vanilla Civ4 and Beyond the Sword, I think the sweet spot lies somewhere in between.

Now, comparing to older civs:
I played the first one (still have the original floppy and box, sniff, one of my first games (-: when I was a litle git.
Two I didn't play that much, for some reason. I guess I had enough of 1 (-:
Then 3 came back, and I continued to play that one to death.

Comparing them to number 4, I think the improved combat system is just what the series needed. No more phalanx killing tanks. (Well, happens, but nly if the tank was severely weakend and the said phalanx had right promotions). Only thing I miss is the lack of ranged bombardment, but that one's fixed with mods really easy.
Heck, I like the new system so much, I actually continue to play Civ 4 from time to time instead of 3.

I like the civics system. It avoids the railroading from previous civs, where you either go democracy for scientific win, or communsm for military (or Fundamentalism in 2 IIRC).

As for diplomacy, I am torn. In 4 you can clearly see what and when affected your relations, which is nice, however in 3 you can make really awesome barters, because you can trade all kinds of stuff for anything, so you may trade a city, gold and a worker for technology, which is impossible in 4.

PS: Word of advice if you want to try the recent Colonization, it has a few idiotic changes from the original (like, the way pioneers and schools are handled, boycotts are now permanent and a couple of other things), so try before you buy.
Its engine heritage really shines through, too, and it really looks like a mod for Civ4.
Overall, it's not bad, but it plays differently in many ways.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

What I don't dig in Civ4 is that those bloody foreigners hate me for all eternity for some Stone Age barbarism I committed on them. Sure, a permanent penalty is nice, but it should have some cap to which it drops after some time, along with the possibility of negating. Usually this is because I don't like taking over the world because everyone thought they could fuck with me.

 

[Elwro]

I have different experiences with the series. I loved Civ 1 and the only part for which I share a similar sentiment is the fourth one. I only used Civ 2 to play huge scenarios - Rome and WWII, I didn't feel the main game was improved in any meaningful way in comparison to the first one and I hugely prefered the top-down view. I almost fully skipped Civ 3 because it felt boring and somehow (maybe I had bad luck) I felt the computer's cheating was too evident. Civ 4, now, was a completely different story. For me it was the return of the "one more turn syndrome", and I got addicted once again. No settler spamming meant more interesting ways of starting the game. I once again thought I understand what's going on and it was so fun to plan ahead...

While I do not normally use the corporations, I really appreciate how the AI has been improved in Beyond the Sword.

 

[dagorkan]

I can barely remember the difference between Civ1 and Civ2... except that there were probably 10 civs (I still remember being terrified hearing the sound of Shaka's drums...) and a single square city radius and that there wasn't much unit progression.

But yes the greatest genius was undoubtedly in the first.

Civ2 -> Civ3 I think the main changes were the introduction of Culture (a big + IMO), strategic resources, multiple health units, veteran status, artillery (not in 2 I think), great generals made an appearance, more flexible diplomacy and a great mod system (modding Civ2 was not easy). Civ3 is just clearly a more developed game.

I think the two problems I can identify I have with Civ4 are:
-civs being too 'samey'
-a mistake in the game design focus. There is much too much focus on micromanaging individual cities and units if you want to be successful, which leads you to invest too much in cities and avoid risks. In Civ3 I would quite often gamble a portion of my empire for a tactical advantage, I lost some and gained some. The world developed and interesting situations arose. In Civ4 it seems civs (AI and player) are encouraged to 'settle down' and a state of stability where nothing much happens. You have to keep investing time/energy in micromanagement but the pay-off in game progress don't justify it.

I especially hate the unit promotions. On a small scale they would be good, individual buildings or civ traits or random events could give your warriors "woodsman" or "guerrilla" bonuses but when you are having to routinely train up dozens of soldiers through four or five levels, with some desirable promotions dependent on certain threshold levels in other or combinations of promotions (which you need to keep looking up) it becomes a meta-gamey mess.

In the "Fall From Heaven" (very innovative, I love it on paper) managing promotions and getting a military edge through killing hundreds of low level barbarians makes up much of the game experience. That's not Civ and it's not particularly fun.

Too much tactics and not enough grand strategy.

Comparing them to number 4, I think the improved combat system is just what the series needed. No more phalanx killing tanks. (Well, happens, but nly if the tank was severely weakend and the said phalanx had right promotions). Only thing I miss is the lack of ranged bombardment, but that one's fixed with mods really easy.
Heck, I like the new system so much, I actually continue to play Civ 4 from time to time instead of 3.

I would have preferred an emphasis on stack composition (which they ignored again) rather than managing individual units. A unit should means nothing in a game of civ but you spend far too long worrying about them.

It should be handled through letting each civ choose a type of civic called a doctrine (based on culture/tech) and buildings and let those automatically shape the promotions you start with and the ones you'll get as they progress. And use unit categories, there should be more than enough already without having to diversify even more. In my games I tend to only use about half the units I could theoretically build, you get the best basic unit and adapt them with promotions - why would you need a recon unit when you could instead focus on infantry and promote a minority of them to get visibility, retreat, woodsman, movement allowance etc specialties?

 

[PorkaMorka]

In Civ4 it seems civs (AI and player) are encouraged to 'settle down' and a state of stability where nothing much happens. You have to keep investing time/energy in micromanagement but the pay-off in game progress don't justify it.

This, this, this.

In every other Civ game and SMAC I'd always play a hybrid of builder/warmonger strategy. Build, but have a few wars every now and then to keep things interesting.

In Civ4 for whatever reason, I found myself being channeled away from that kind of strategy. Wars were a big deal, and I generally only had one or two early ones and then it just didn't seem productive to do so anymore. This meant an entire late game that consisted of nothing but micromanaging cities and workers, aspects which are still at their core the same as the earlier games, and kind of boring compared to SMAC. You can only research the same technologies in four different games so many times before they're not too exciting.

This peaceful strategy was effective, but ultimately led to an utterly boring game, so I played Civ 4 the least out of any other Civ game and pretty much don't think it was worth the money.

400 years where nothing happens isn't fun for me.

 

[Elwro]

One thing I don't like is that after the patches the technology tree poster which came in the box has become pretty useless.

 

[Marsal]

I find Civ4 + BtS the best 4X game I ever played. MoO2 was great, but I played it so long ago, that I can't be sure anymore I've played Civ 4 since the first day it came out and I still play a few games every month. GalCiv 2 I didn't like at all. That game is too generic for me and has no soul (can't explain it any better). It had many similarities with MoO, but it didn't impress me one bit.

Vanilla Civ 4 had some stupid design decisions like granting vision to the owner of the holy city for all the cities that share the same religion, espionage that's of little use until late eras and a couple more less annoying ones.

BtS corrected that nicely and added awesome corporations. I really dig corps. I usually go for bronze working in the beginning and skip all of the religion founding techs (even if I go for religious techs and manage to found an early religion, I find myself unable to spread the religion effectively). So I make it all up with Sid's Sushi Co and the like

It does get tedious when your empire grows over a dozen or so cities and/or you have a large number of units in multiple "theaters of war". Combining units in divisions or battalions would be a nice addition for the next game.

As much as I like Civ 4, I absolutely loathe Colonization remake. It's pure crap. I really like the concept of the game and the idea of using colonists for every task from soldier to worker. Could be great in a Civ game, but some design decisions are really baffling. The better organized and larger your colony is, the more of the Zerg, errr... royal forces come. It's like fucking Bethesda doing 4X. And it's not that they are that hard to beat. It's just stupid I can beat the game at just about any difficulty by not developing the colony. Other big flaw is automatization of transports. It is not well done (or not good enough for me). I like to micromanage, but it does get tedious after awhile.

 

[OSK]

Civ 3 sux, Civ 4 rox

Glad I could contribute.

 

[Elwro]

As much as I like Civ 4, I absolutely loathe Colonization remake. It's pure crap. I really like the concept of the game and the idea of using colonists for every task from soldier to worker. Could be great in a Civ game, but some design decisions are really baffling. The better organized and larger your colony is, the more of the Zerg, errr... royal forces come. It's like fucking Bethesda doing 4X. And it's not that they are that hard to beat. It's just stupid I can beat the game at just about any difficulty by not developing the colony.

That's a shame, I was really eager to play that.

 

[Marsal]

In Civ4 it seems civs (AI and player) are encouraged to 'settle down' and a state of stability where nothing much happens. You have to keep investing time/energy in micromanagement but the pay-off in game progress don't justify it.

I think you're either not playing the maps I play or we have a different understanding of stability and boring game.

I usually play the standard sized terra (I think terra2 map in BtS or download earth-like map, Earth3) with normal sea level and other factors. Default number of civs (I think it's 6+1). Difficulty: immortal (emperor if I'm in it for the fun, deity for the challenge). These settings make the game last about 8 hours (give or take a few), with me turning off every helper and microing everything (I'm weird, I know).

For a nice exciting game, emperor difficulty (translated: one difficulty level lower than you can normally win) and mix of strategies is the best.

Things I do that I don't find boring: engaging in a cultural war (building theters, turning up the culture slider, using artist specialists) in preparation for all out war with a neighbor, bribing your friends to attack the civilization with the best city/cities (position, religion and position wise) and capturing just the one city you wanted (saving money on the upkeep, while spreading your borders in the newly created no-mans land), causing a global war, while being friend to everyone and racking up gold from trade routes with your Temple of Artemis (and using that gold to get ahead in research and fuel the war further). Or simply going all out on war effort and raze the cities you don't need/want. One war per "military advancement" is advisable, as is being ahead in research.

Nifty thing is to play it cautiously, settle only a couple of cities, beeline to astronomy and colonize the new world. This is also nice if you're falling behind and/or see no way in capturing land and growing your empire in the old world.

One other thing to try is to turn off the research and rely on espionage to get the techs and cause trouble for others (other than the obvious sabotage ie. spreading your culture in border cities, stealing gold, changing religions and/or civics ...).

The only time I have been bored in Civ 4, is when I play to win by diplomacy or culture from the beginning (it gets stale when you don't have an army) and when I fall behind a whole era tech-wise and can't actually do anything except wait for an opening (this often happens to me at deity difficulty if I'm too passive).

So, get creative and play Venetian style. Bribe others and reap the fruits of their wars. Try to spread your borders and wipe out 2-3 border cities in first turn of the war. Be the Pope and declare Crusades on the strongest infidel. Lower the difficulty if needed and mix up your strategy.

That's a shame, I was really eager to play that.

Well maybe I'm being too harsh, but I really had high expectations. They did upgrade the graphics, water is quite nice Try the "high seas" version and see if you like it or wait for others to chime in (remember I don't like GalCiv 2 and most people do)? Buy a bigger monitor first

 

[Rat Keeng]

The better organized and larger your colony is, the more of the Zerg, errr... royal forces come.

Do you mean that the stronger and wealthier your colonies are, the stronger your mother country becomes? I don't really see what's wrong with that, it was like this in the original as well.

That having been said;

It's just stupid I can beat the game at just about any difficulty by not developing the colony.

That is mindbafflingly stupid. Did they just copy every single feature from the original, without eliminating all the exploits and stupid shit?

 

[kris]

In fact, I believe that it gets more difficult the larger colony you have.

The easiest way to win would be to just develop one city, get money from treasures, horde guns and then revolt. as soon as you revolt you just convert everyone to soldiers.

 

[spectre]

Yup, the zerg rush of royal army is annoying. If your colonies are all coastal, it means they are all upon you momentarily, with three gargantuan stacks. Building landlocked colonies is a kind of a solution to this, but this just means you have to rely on those annoying wagon trains to move stuff around. Basically, if you want to have an easy independence war, it means screwing yourself for the first 2/3 of the game.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, just a change from how the original Col operated.

Back to the civilizations - in Civ 2 and 3 on higher difficulties the comp was cheating like crazy, it was basically impossible to achieve a tech victory - especially in 3 they traded tech like crazy (basically, whenever something was discovered, all other AIs had it within the next few turns). It was like having a research conglomerate gainst you. Add to it the research and production bounuses the AI had, and it al became quite a masochistic experience (at least imo).

 

[Marsal]

Back to the civilizations - in Civ 2 and 3 on higher difficulties the comp was cheating like crazy, it was basically impossible to achieve a tech victory - especially in 3 they traded tech like crazy (basically, whenever something was discovered, all other AIs had it within the next few turns). It was like having a research conglomerate gainst you. Add to it the research and production bounuses the AI had, and it al became quite a masochistic experience (at least imo).

I think it's pretty much the same in Civ 4. On deity, AI civs get (I'm not 100% sure about this) 2 settlers, 3 workers and a couple of archers (in addition to production, research and upgrade bonus). It's a huge handicap, but it makes the game more challenging. There is always noble difficulty, where AI is on the same footing as the player.

The thing I forgot to mention in previous post (and I consider very stupid) are vassal states. I always disable vassal states and tech brokering (tech acquired in a trade, can't be traded).

 

[odon]

I prefer Civ2 and original Colonization over the new ones.

Civ4:Colonization has the same stupid AI, the same units, the same buildings, the same terrain and uuuuuh it has 3d. The animations when you move a unit takes so long, you could win the revolution in real life in the mean time. Fancy graphics break playability. thats a fucking fact.