Will you still play the old Civs now that Civ IV is out?

[Don Maddox]

I have heard that some gamers still prefer Civ III over Civ IV for one reason or another. Is anyone here still playing the old titles in the series?

[Gary McClellan]

I don't have enough computer (graphics card actually), to run Civ IV, so I'm still in Civ III

[Troy Goodfellow]

Nope. Never. Not in a million years. Unless I am doing some research on game design or something.

Civ IV does everything so much better than Civ III there is no point in moving back to it if your hardware permits. Civ II and the original? Forget about it.

Even Alpha Centauri - a very good Civ game - is completely outclassed.

[mr_clark]

Also no jump backwards from me, though I keep 3 installed as there is still a going multiplayer game...

[Aries]

There is no going back with this one.

I used to think Civilization 2 Test of Time would always be fun, as it had 3 worlds to play in just one package. But it is just a fraction of the game experience you get with Civ IV.

I like how with Civ IV there are so many routes to victory, and winning doesn't mean pump out units and do your best imitation of a Zerg Rush in turn mode.

I like the customizable nature of the game play.
Barbarians, no barbarians, way to many barbarians.
AIs, way to many AIs, Nasty AIs.
Cultural only victory or kill em all victory conditions.
All the types of environment.

Really like the borders function. Politics is fun. And now, you can either buy em off, or just send in missionaries and have their people join you whether they want to or not.

In Civ 3, I always found the only strategy that worked was kill everything in sight. Expand, expand faster, build, build more. But eventually that gets old.

[Taitennek]

Really like the borders function. Politics is fun. And now, you can either buy em off, or just send in missionaries and have their people join you whether they want to or not.



I like that, sending in missionaries.......Do I have to dress myself?:laugh:

I playCiv III, nice graphics too, but sometimes boring slow between all the enemy moves. I like the sound of the sinking ships/boats, but that has something to do with playing Harpoon:laugh:

Cheers,
Taitennek.:smoke:

[Vinnie]

I reverted to playing Alpha Centui when civ3 was out but 4 negates the need for that. The only reason I find for keeping civ3 is the multiplayer games go a little bit faster but that is marginal.

[viridomaros]

i haven't played Civ 4 yet but i don't like how it looks, i don't know if i'll ever try it. i still play civilisation III conquest from time to time trying to win on monarch level.
but i have spent a lot of time on Civ II and i might reinstall it the world war II scenario is just so lovely :cheeky:

[Patrick Carroll]

I have heard that some gamers still prefer Civ III over Civ IV for one reason or another. Is anyone here still playing the old titles in the series?

I've heard so many wonderful things about Civ IV that I finally broke down and bought it yesterday. One thing I can attest to already: it's addictive in just the same way as the three other versions. I was planning to install it, patch it, and then go do something else; but I ended up playing a full game (won a space-race victory).

I'd never go back to any of the earlier versions--because I had mixed feelings about them in the first place. They were all too big and long and required too much micromanagement. The only thing that kept me playing was pure addiction.

When Civ III came out, I kept hearing people say Civ II was a much better game. I expected to hear the same kind of thing this time, but it hasn't happened. Most everybody agrees that Civ IV is the best.

Graphics-wise, I think the best version was Civ II. Civ I was too grainy, and starting with Civ III it became too busy and cinematic for my taste. Civ IV is downright ugly, IMO. I'd much prefer a simpler, clearer graphics style.

The big plus that I see in Civ IV is that it can be customized to suit anyone's size and game-length preferences. I got to where I was playing Civ III only on "tiny" maps--and even those games were too big and long (unless I managed to pull off an early conquest). But with Civ IV, there are definitely ways to make the game fit your schedule and interest level. It's a breath of fresh air in that sense.

[Telumar]

I didn't buy civ4, i saw it at a friend of mine and now i know i need not to buy it. First of all, i don't like how the map looks like, i think it's unclear and overdone in detail. Second, and most annoying, is artillery with a range of just one (!), that really hurts me...third, the rail movement limitations. Why shouldn't it be possible to move a tank unit (or something else) over an entire continent via rail in one year (one turn) ?!?

I still play civ3 conquests. But there are also some features that are really good in civ4. The religion system (great) and the political/government settings.

Another teardrop. This friend of mine is running an athlon amd 2800 GHz with 512 MB RAM and has a Nvidia graphic card with 128MB RAM and still got problems running civ4...hardware requirements are really hard. Maybe they fixed it in the meantime...

My two cents...

[Aries]

Civ III has warts, might as well accept that too.

Civ IV has warts, so what.

All comes down to which warts turn your crank. I understand they released a patch that really kicks up the performance (and me without a decent video card currently dang it).

But the other day I was compiling a master dvd of images (that by the way means I COPIED the games eh, deal with that reality any way you like, I want to only have to fiddle with a single disc if at all), and I was reloading all the oldies to ensure the image file worked.
Civ III is still a good game, but it isn't as good as IV. It's a 8.5 while Civ IV is at least a 9 (when comparing them in an isolated assessment that is).

I think over all I would like to see something like Alpha Centauri revisited maybe, with the newer game concepts available. Not a total re invent of the game, just use some of the newer religious and political mechanics maybe.
Maybe go and revisit the fantasy setting they did for Test of Time as well. Although I'm not sure how they would do a multi race religious angle.

[Telumar]

I think over all I would like to see something like Alpha Centauri revisited maybe, with the newer game concepts available. Not a total re invent of the game, just use some of the newer religious and political mechanics maybe.
Maybe go and revisit the fantasy setting they did for Test of Time as well. Although I'm not sure how they would do a multi race religious angle.

Never played alpha centauri, but was disappointed by Master of Orion III, a MoO IV would be great.
And apropos fantasy setting..there is a warhammer fantasy mod for civ3. Unfortunatly i can't play that mod i think because it's available for the english version of civ3 only and i am running the Deutsche Version..:o

[AChmielowski]

Its a great game and a nice easy game to play, compared to Civ 4!:nuts:

[Taitennek]

Its a great game and a nice easy game to play, compared to Civ 4!:nuts:

I still play CIV 2 en CIV 3, I have bought CIV 4, played it a few times, but honestly, I prefer to play CIV 2 and 3.

Cheers,
Taitennek

[Aries]

Never played alpha centauri, but was disappointed by Master of Orion III, a MoO IV would be great.
And apropos fantasy setting..there is a warhammer fantasy mod for civ3. Unfortunatly i can't play that mod i think because it's available for the english version of civ3 only and i am running the Deutsche Version..:o

Good god man, comparing Alpha Centauri with MOO3!!?

[AChmielowski]

I still play CIV 2 en CIV 3, I have bought CIV 4, played it a few times, but honestly, I prefer to play CIV 2 and 3.

Cheers,
Taitennek

I`m playing a great game of Ultimate Civilisation now !:D

[Dan_Dare]

I gotta say I love Civ IV. The moment I saw the map on the globe from space I was hooked. Yeah, it has glitches but as Aries pointed out they all did. IV was the only one that has had me playing the same game 48 hours straight (god I was tired and hallucinating by the end but WOW! My wife was kind and kept me fed and watered while I was obsessing).

I still have Civ II and III. I went back to play them and strangely I found Civ II more fun than III, because it was simple and fast paced and very different to the later versions. Civ III has the best look and feel, but the game play is outclassed by IV, especially the things like health, religeon, great people, building the towns and things in the surrounding country side, governments and the sweep of victory conditions. I kinda like the skills thing for the units but I almost wished for just a simple +1/+2 system instead of all the different abilities which I often forgot about while playing.

I have only two complaints with Civ IV:

1) The negotiating system doesn't allow some of the more flexible trade negotiations of III.

2) There are still long stretches where your workers run out of things to do.

[Aries]

"2) There are still long stretches where your workers run out of things to do."

Actually, having a stash of workers after your lands get over developed is not always a bad thing. If say your cash takes a hit, they immediately go out and adjust your holdings. I have in a lot of cases found I had perfectly good looking cities removed for farms, and perfectly fine farms built over with towns in the past.

I almost never directly control my workers once I get past the 3rd initial city. I find they often ferret out the best activity a lot faster than I can. Not that I couldn't, but it takes me a lot longer to find them than they do.

[Mantis]

Civ III? Never heard of it. I *did*, however, purchase Civ 2.5...

:freak:

(Ok, ok - I must admit to liking it, it was an improvement over Civ II. But I was part of the 'tweak' fest going on over at Apolyton, and they implemented virtually none of the improvements that they said 'some of' would be included... It seemed more like a good patch, or an expansion at best, not a completely new release...)

[Taitennek]

Civ III? Never heard of it. I *did*, however, purchase Civ 2.5...

:freak:


You mean the one with the little green monkey? they paint the worker green and gave it big ears,so it is better camouflaged in the forest
Great version!:bite:

[Mantis]

Ahh! Another vict-uhhh-I-mean-fan!

[tomart]

I like the customizable nature of the game play.
Barbarians, no barbarians, way to many barbarians.
AIs, way to many AIs, Nasty AIs.
Cultural only victory or kill em all victory conditions.
All the types of environment.


Civ3 had all that, and more.
But I agree, the diplomacy is better now, and the graphics, and the AI, and a whole lot more. And thank God they finally got rid of corruption/waste!!!

But there are some things that I think Civ3 did better. In Civ4 war is too expensive and it's too much trouble to take each individual city. I liked how artillery was distinctly different, and - admit it - the sound of cannon and artillery in Civ3 was excellent. Civ4's artillery sound sucks. And speaking of sound, the babble you get every single time you click on a unit just got too annoying; you can turn "voices" off, but then you can't hear Nimoy's pronouncements.
But mostly what will keep me going back to Civ3 are the Conquests. Most of them are really excellent games in their own right!

[Aries]

Sorry to inform you, they didn't get rid of corruption and waste.

Now it's built in to the game. Make too many cities, too far apart too distant, and you better learn "Code of Laws" darn quick. Because the more cities you have and the more spread out they are, the faster your available cash will vanish.

I would disagree about taking cities. My fav ploy, build culture and make them just quit the other side and join me :) But otherwise, taking a city by force is not hard. Against a AI city, 5 decent military units, maybe 5 artillery type units. You pound the city till it is 0%, then assault the military units with artillery, then sponge up the mess with you army, city is yours. Granted, they won't just sit there and cooperate.

[Mantis]

Alot of times, I like to not really build any army (except city defence) until it is almost too late... I expand like a plague, and just keep going until the computer starts to do something about me, at which time I switch over. I usually lose a few cities to the AI by the time I get things under control, but that's not a bad thing, as I usually grow pretty freakin' huge before they manage to apply the brakes to me.

When the dust clears, I have my future target lined up, and a military on his border that isn't quite enough to go on the offensive, but is more than enough to ensure that I can't be invaded. Then those massive amounts of cities start cranking out the hardware, and the sheer size of my empire makes it virtually impossible to resist me after the ol' war industry kicks in. I'm also a stickler for getting city prodcution up very high as the fisrt builds in any city. I'll micromanage a few key cities, especially early in the game, but when you start becoming a 'super-empire', you quickly realize that you can't mess about with each individual city. When a new one pops up, I give it a build queue that will keep it busy for quite some time, and then forget it even exists.

Also, you have to love those cities that are in the tundra with forests and (if you're lucky) a river... They can never grow beyond size 3 or 5 (or what-have-you), so there is no point in building alot of things there... So what good are they? Well, they usually have a fairly reasonable production (for their size), so I start cranking units out of them. They never match my big cities, which will start cranking out the expensive units every turn, but when you have 30 little cities like that, the industrial production becomes quite noticeable.

Also, it may take some time for me to do it, but eventually, I will have every single square of my empire being worked (or able to be worked). It really can become a pain when you get that large, but it's the only way to beat the highest difficulty levels in the game. I don't bother playing that high most of the time, as you need to be in the right mood to want to deal with an empire like that. Most games will be set to a level where I can stop at a more comfortable, manageable size, so I actually enjoy the game...

:laugh:

[tomart]

Sorry to inform you, they didn't get rid of corruption and waste..You're not informing me, I already knew that from playing the game a couple of hundred hours.

Make too many cities, too far apart too distant, and you better learn "Code of Laws" darn quick.I take your meaning, but I don't think it's called Code of Laws anymore.
Because the more cities you have and the more spread out they are, the faster your available cash will vanish..Yes, I like to spread out like an e coli infection (somewhat like the previous post describes, but more carefully.)

I would disagree about taking cities. My fav ploy, build culture and make them just quit the other side and join me :) But otherwise, taking a city by force is not hard. Against a AI city, 5 decent military units, maybe 5 artillery type units. You pound the city till it is 0%, then assault the military units with artillery, then sponge up the mess with you army, city is yours. Granted, they won't just sit there and cooperate.
Yes, your last sentence is on the mark. While you're trudging the slow units through enemy territory to the city, the AI is pretty good at sending out spoiling attacks to weaken or kill those 5. By the time you get there, if you're still able to force the city, your loss ratio is higher; and this is just to take one city? At this rate, the war will take forever, and the AI will have developed specific techs and units to kill me better.
My point remains::angry: they've made warfare too expensive and time-consuming.

[Aries]

Hmm not wanting to sound nasty, but what were you doing for those 100s of hours?

I personally LIKE them to make spoiling attacks, suckering the AI out of decent defenses is always a good thing. I make a point of always being on advantageous terrain, and for the few turns needed to blast city defenses down, any damage the troops might have taken walking there will be healed before the assault begins.

The only thing about Civ that has ever bothered me, is the time scale of a turn.

You can effectively spend hundreds of turns playing the game, and those hundreds can be hundreds of years. But we all know mankind has done amazing things in only a few years in some cases. It's hard to make it seem "realistic" in some cases.

[tomart]

I personally LIKE them to make spoiling attacks, suckering the AI out of decent defenses is always a good thing. I make a point of always being on advantageous terrain, and for the few turns needed to blast city defenses down, any damage the troops might have taken walking there will be healed before the assault begins..Yes, getting them out of their defenses is good, but they can often kill or knock down your units to mere shreds of their former selves, and healing in enemy territory takes the longest.
..."always" being on good terrain? That's a bit of a trick, unless you've designed the map.
Yes, despite being quite impressed with CivIV's elaborate combat/promotion system, I still look back fondly on Civ3 warfare (and Artillery!)
The only thing about Civ that has ever bothered me, is the time scale of a turn. ... It's hard to make it seem "realistic" in some cases.Absolutely true. In the time it takes to walk to an opponent, he could research something that makes your units obsolete before they arrive.
And NAVAL movement - don't get me started... In the early game, I like to send exploratory boats out to plot the world coastlines. But what took maybe a few years historically, could end up being a thousand year voyage.
And depending on what era you're in, a typical Atlantic crossing could take a unit decades...! That's why I'm unashamed of using a chain of boats to speed things up; it's too absurd otherwise.:D
Oh, and while I'm being picky: CivIV took away some useful trade options. Another case of someone crying "Exploit!" no doubt. During the Conquests beta (some of the best months of my life :cry:) I saw how they loved to stomp out anything tarred with the label "Exploit."