Civ III or Civ IV?

[Cienja]

I was at the store yesterday looking for something new and saw Civ IV. I have Civ III, but haven't played it for a long time. I'm debating whether to play III or buy IV. Is IV that much better than III?

Thanks!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Yes

 

[Bateluer]

IV is better than III, just as III is better than II. I enjoyed both, but enjoyed CivIV much much more. You can also pick up Civ3 and Civ4 on Steam, plus their expansions. I am uncertain if Civ2 and 1 are on Steam though.

 

[Rottie]

Yep Civ4 is much better than III....Trust 3 of us here

 

[AllWhacked]

Civ IV is great. I was hesitant to buy it since I felt content playing III, but finally broke down and bought it about a year ago.

In any case, Civ IV changes the way you play the game, just how Civ III changed from II. For example, you can no longer just build up an army of knights and steamroll the computer. Now they implement a type of rock paper scissors type of combat. For example, you have melee units that are good against spear unit. Spear is good against cavalry. Cavalry is good against archers. The use of fortifications also plays a greater role, such that you will need build artillery to take them down. Otherwise if you don't, the defender get such a bonus that its suicide to attack, even if you have a vastly superior unit.

That's just an example of how it's changed and as a fan of all the civ games, I think it's a change for the better.

Just remember that Civ IV has much higher system requirements than Civ III did. Whereas Civ III only got needy near the end-game or while playing huge maps, Civ IV needs a fairly decent video card to go with it.

By decent I would say you would need a Radeon 9800 Pro/Nvidia 6600GT to play with all the eye candy on and with no lag. Though when I downgraded from an x800 Pro back to my 9800 Pro, I did notice it would lag slightly when zooming in and out of the map. And that it would lag near the end game if I played a large map. Also, 2GB of RAM seems to play alot better than 1GB.

 

[sandorski]

IV is a lot better than III(which I thought sucked hard compared to II).

 

[SergeC]

IV is fantastic

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: sandorski
IV is a lot better than III(which I thought sucked hard compared to II).

I agree 100%. Never could get into 3 (I tried hard) but 4 has been good so far. Civ 2 is till the greatest game made so I have a bit of bias.

 

[stevty2889]

I like Civ IV as well, I think they made quite a lot of improvements over 3.

 

[lupi]

I hated the anti city-sprawl production penalty they used in 3 which alone makes IV a better game.

 

[Cienja]

IV it is!

 

[lozina]

I find IV extremely addictive, gratifying and a reliable source of quick fun.

III in my opinion was easily the worst of the series. It was so bad it made me hesitate buying IV because it was the same developer.

 

[CPA]

Get IV or wait until Sept/Oct for Civilization: Societies.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CPA
Civilization: Societies.

What is that? Never heard of it and google is not finding anything for me

 

[biostud]

Civ IV >>> Civ III, I've just started playing Civ IV again last week.

 

[Kyteland]

Civ IV is definitely the better game, and it has a ton of great mods out that you can play if you get bored with the original game.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I am uncertain if Civ2 and 1 are on Steam though.

Civ2 and Civ1 were developed by Microprose and thus are now owned by Atari (infogrames). EDIT: looks like Atari sold the entire franchise to 2K.

Originally posted by: Brule
Civ 2 is till the greatest game made so I have a bit of bias.

I agree that Civ2 was the best in the series that I have played (the only one that I have not played being the first one). SMAC was very good as well and IMO better than Civ4. But, SMAC is no Civ II.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CPA
Civilization: Societies.

What is that? Never heard of it and google is not finding anything for me

Looks like it may be being renamed Civilization V. I have to take a look at my mag when I get home.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I am uncertain if Civ2 and 1 are on Steam though.

Civ2 and Civ1 were developed by Microprose and thus are now owned by Atari (infogrames).

Not quite right, Atari sold it to Take2 which is why you recently saw the Civ collection for sale earlier this year.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I enjoy Alpha Centauri and its Alien Crossfire expansion. I really wish they'd make an Alpha Centauri II.

So, how does Civ 4 compare to Alpha Centauri? Can you design your own units? Do the city micromanagement aspects of the game become tedious once you have, say 15-20 cities? Does the computer AI actually offer a good challenge? Does increasing the difficulty setting improve the quality of the AI or does it merely allow the computer players to "cheat"?

 

[Cienja]

I about lost my marriage over Civ II back in the day...

Maybe I'll get the "ok" from her and try II again.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CPA
Civilization: Societies.

What is that? Never heard of it and google is not finding anything for me

Looks like it may be being renamed Civilization V. I have to take a look at my mag when I get home.

Okay, I f'd up. I was thinking Sim City: Societies.

 

[Brule]

My big complaint with "updating" some of these great games is the confusion that more complex = more fun, which just isn't so. Civ 3 is a classic example of that. In 50 years chess as we know it will still be played, no need for new pieces or new board shapes. I look at 90's Microprose games the same way. Maybe we should be happy Alpha Centuri II was never made, it'd be hard to top the original.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Only thing I'd want out of an Alpha Centauri 2 would be more character/civilization choices at the start (selectable collections of different game strengths and weaknesses) and much better AI. Also, it would be nice if the land had more colors than just red and green.