Civ 3 or 4?

[Jaqen]

Hi all,

Never played a Civ game before and would like to know if I should start with 3 or 4?
I'm guessing play with only latest patch first or is there some kind of highly recommended unofficial fix I must know of?

Many thanks,

 

[Malakal]

Civ 3 is very micro intensive with lots and lots of cities that need queues and shit. It also has less options than Civ 4 to play with, while at the same time is less accessible.

I may be biased but Civ 4 is the way to go for me.

 

[DakaSha]

uh oh here we go ^^

 

[YourConscience]

Did anyone ever find a solution for the extreme turn times in Civ 4? Using vanilla or any mod (some are worse) by the mid-game I lose interest simply because processing each turn starts to take up to a minute which really is not my definition of fun...

And that on a not so weak Core 2 Duo E8400. Hence, upgrading to the newestest processor ever would only halve the minute to 30secs, which woud still grow to over a minute by the end of the game...

 

[Ulminati]

I beleive the closest we've gotten to a consensus on the civ series was something akin to this:

Civ 2 > Civ 4 with expansions and mods > Civ 1= Civ 4 vanilla > Civ 3 >> Civ 5 > Civ Rev

 

[DakaSha]

there is a very specific member that will not agree with that

 

[Ulminati]

there is a very specific member that will not agree with that

Skyway hates anything that isn't ArmA or has CGA graphics.

 

[Malakal]

Did anyone ever find a solution for the extreme turn times in Civ 4? Using vanilla or any mod (some are worse) by the mid-game I lose interest simply because processing each turn starts to take up to a minute which really is not my definition of fun...

And that on a not so weak Core 2 Duo E8400. Hence, upgrading to the newestest processor ever would only halve the minute to 30secs, which woud still grow to over a minute by the end of the game...

Patch up the game, it had great memory leaks. Other than that no, no solution, its just slow later on when a lot happens.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Did anyone ever find a solution for the extreme turn times in Civ 4? Using vanilla or any mod (some are worse) by the mid-game I lose interest simply because processing each turn starts to take up to a minute which really is not my definition of fun...

Compared to the turn times of Civ V, it might as well be lightning quick.

 

[MapMan]

inb4 skyway.

 

[Destroid]

inb4 skyway.

But yeah, Civ4 > Civ3.

 

[spectre]

Right. We all know what Skyway's gonna say.

Personally, if you're just beginning your CIV experience, number 4 seems the most noob-friendly. Ir you have never ever played a civ game before, I recommend that you go vanilla at first to get used to the gameplay, then upgrade to Beyond the Sword (or just gofer the expansion, all the added features aren't exactly rocket science).

The problem with CIV 4 is that the early game is banalshitboring, so eventually you'll want to check out the mods. I had good fun with WolfRevolution mod, Rise of Mankind is also pretty good. Head over to civfanatics and take your pick.
Also, BtS comes with a pretty neat selection of mods and total conversions, so it should keep you occupied for some time.

Now, there's nothing wrong with CIV3. Supposedly, with mods it can be pretty decent. However, comparing vanilla versions, I have to say that CIV feels shallow - the combat system is only slightly less inane than the previous installments
and the whole winning strategy boils down to grabbing the most land.
Sure, the combat in IV is also random as feck, units losing 99% win situatons, but at least you get to see the modifiers and the promotions system is pure win.

Since you're not asking about number V, good for you. Don't.
These is a 50/50 chance this piece of turd might be playable after an expansion pack and a total overhaul.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

CIV2 > CIV3 > CIV4
??? CIV1 SNES version ???

That's the order I recommend them, based on the completely objective method of which one I liked to play the most.

 

[Eyeball]

Prefer Civ3. Civ4 buggered up the interface and added some refreshing new ideas that were nevertheless poorly implemented, like religion and corporations, although it was somewhat amusing to take over the world as the Jewish German Empire. The promotion system I also found to be more of an irritating hassle than adding strategic depth, although others may disagree with that. But at least they removed the silly "gain experiece, gain +50% health bar!" system from Civ3 that often made early game sieges nigh-on unwinnable.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

If you want a Civ game, go with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Can't suggest any mods, though, it's been a long time.
But if you're hellbent on Civ4 vs Civ3, then Civ4 + all expansions + Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn.

 

[Eyeball]

Or fi you want Civ3 - Penta Genesis mod. Old mod and never was fully finished, but imaginative, looks interesting and has good troop progression.

 

[Destroid]

Prefer Civ3. Civ4 buggered up the interface and added some refreshing new ideas that were nevertheless poorly implemented, like religion and corporations, although it was somewhat amusing to take over the world as the Jewish German Empire. The promotion system I also found to be more of an irritating hassle than adding strategic depth, although others may disagree with that. But at least they removed the silly "gain experiece, gain +50% health bar!" system from Civ3 that often made early game sieges nigh-on unwinnable.

You can turn on auto-promote if you don't want to deal with it.

 

[Ulminati]

If you want a Civ game, go with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

Quoted for truth. Only reason I didn't put it at the top of my list in my previous post was because I assumed you only wanted the Civs that actualy shared the name.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Compared to civ 3, civ 4 has a significantly improved economics model, very good tech tree, much better AI than in any other Civ game, good balance between traits (with the warlords-introduced traits being poorly implemented and the rest good) as well as some meh-ish features like religion and corporations (corporations being added by Civ 5 developer Schafer himself). I'd say combat complexity is largely unchanged.

I haven't played civ 1 or 2 but from what I hear neither have fixed the problem of city spam, so I would without a doubt recommend you civ 4 with expansions.

 

[attackfighter]

Compared to civ 3, civ 4 has a significantly improved economics model, very good tech tree, much better AI than in any other Civ game, good balance between traits (with the warlords-introduced traits being poorly implemented and the rest good) as well as some meh-ish features like religion and corporations (corporations being added by Civ 5 developer Schafer himself). I'd say combat complexity is largely unchanged.

I haven't played civ 1 or 2 but from what I hear neither have fixed the problem of city spam, so I would without a doubt recommend you civ 4 with expansions.

Civ 4's economic model was worse. Cottages were poorly implemented, they simply took too much time to grow. If you lose a war for example and your cottages are destroyed, you're at too much of a disadvantage to make any sort of comeback because on top of the regular reprecussions of a lost war (captured cities, lost investment you put into the war, lack of military immediately afterwards, etc.) you have to spend roughly 1/4 of the game nursing your cottages back to health, and that's too big of a handicap to overcome (assuming your opponent is competent). I'm all for 'grand strategy', but not when it's applied to such an extent that a single, common event can dictate the rest of the game.

 

[Malakal]

So wars can ruin nations? GEE fucking impossible. Maybe it makes for a bad gameplay but makes a lot of sense for me in historical context. Besides you could always go for the specialist based economy. You had the opportunity to do so unlike civ 3.

 

[DwarvenFood]

civ 4 has nice mod's for it as well and for me it is the best civ so far, but be sure to get all the add-ons for it because the vanilla was a bit more meh.

 

[attackfighter]

So wars can ruin nations? GEE fucking impossible. Maybe it makes for a bad gameplay but makes a lot of sense for me in historical context. Besides you could always go for the specialist based economy. You had the opportunity to do so unlike civ 3.

I take it France is still recovering from the hundred years war?

And specialist economy is a gimmick btw, it only works against retardo AI.

 

[Malakal]

Cottages take 60 turns to grow into cities, that means at best 60 years. A bit much but you can speed it up with civics.

 

[taplonaplo]

I heard late game trade route calculations were really awesome in civ3.