Board 8 > Question about Civ 3

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do I need roads running from my cities to mines? I can't just have mines on my land right?

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

no

--
Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND!
http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w

No what? To the first question? I asked 2 questions, so maybe that was my fault.

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

You only have to build a road to actual goods (like Iron), not random mines.

But build roads anyways, the more the better from what I remember.

--
Wind!
Falconnnnnnn PUNCH!

Yeah from what I've seen, roads help your units move faster. Awesome.

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

Any reason you're playing 3 over the vastly superior 4 and 5?

I liked 3 more than 4.

I know, I'm a bad person.

--
Wind!
Falconnnnnnn PUNCH!

Got it for cheap through a Steam sale awhile back. I've also heard 5 isn't as good as some of the others.

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

What's the order of quality in the Civ series and what makes it that way?

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

5 started off horrible, but after the patches is better than everything but 4. 4 vs 5 is a preference thing at this point IMO. 3 is nowhere near as good as either of them!

from what i remember, 4>5 in every aspect but combat, which 5 is the best at. either one is better than their predecessors though.

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

Yeah but why? Are units more balanced? One thing I've noticed about Civ 3 is the battles are all random. It was weird switching from the RTS genre to TBS. I expected units to be more statistical instead of dice rolls. The only other experience I have with this type of game is Romance of 3 Kingdoms which I played like 10 years ago and it confused me a ton.

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

What's the order of quality in the Civ series and what makes it that way?

4 = 5 >>> 3 > 2 > 1

Some would argue that 2 and 3 should be switched. I think the more modern UI and accessibility make 3 better, but if you played 2 when it came out you might like it more.

4 and 5 are the really good ones, and they succeed in different ways. 4 is like a culmination of what made the series good. Everything is well thought out and they've gotten rid of some dumb stuff that plagued the earlier games, but it's still like the first few.

5 is something of a departure for the series, in some good ways and some bad ways. 5 has by far the most interesting combat system of the series - the last few games were known for their "stacks of doom" where you stack 70 tanks and mass move them onto a city as standard practice. 5 makes armies more expensive and limits to one unit per tile which makes combat a lot better and less of a messy cluster. 5 is also a lot more streamlined than the rest of the series.

5 has a less-developed diplomacy system though - if there's ever an expansion, we can hope they address that. If not, it's still a good game, though one that lacks a couple areas of depth that 4 had.

Yeah but why? Are units more balanced? One thing I've noticed about Civ 3 is the battles are all random. It was weird switching from the RTS genre to TBS. I expected units to be more statistical instead of dice rolls. The only other experience I have with this type of game is Romance of 3 Kingdoms which I played like 10 years ago and it confused me a ton.

You're describing the "wtf spearman beats tank" thing that happened far too often in early Civ games. I'm mostly familiar with it from Civ 3. Yeah, that got better over time. It's not what they mean when they say combat got better, though - combat just improved a good deal in every way between 4 and 5. 5 is the first game where combat is somewhat interesting TBH.

Well I haven't made it that far yet, but yeah. I was having trouble understanding why I wasn't making money. I would research something and I'd wonder why I wasn't able to make certain units. I had no idea I had to actually go and gather the resources.

--
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC

The Real Truth posted...
Yeah but why? Are units more balanced? One thing I've noticed about Civ 3 is the battles are all random. It was weird switching from the RTS genre to TBS. I expected units to be more statistical instead of dice rolls. The only other experience I have with this type of game is Romance of 3 Kingdoms which I played like 10 years ago and it confused me a ton.

Battles in Civ4 are less random and even carry light RPG elements. I've never played Civ5 but from what I've heard, the combat in general is improved but the AI is too dumb to adjust to it.

Play Civ4 later, darn it! Also this thread has inspired me to perhaps think about giving Civ4 another playthrough. Maybe after my blind Portal playthrough?

EDIT: I've never played Civ3, but from what I've heard, you merely need to link each resource with a road to gain access to that resource. In Civ4, a resource must actually be linked with a tile improvement as well as a road (for example, a mine is needed to gain access to copper and a pasture is needed to gain access to cows).

--
Currently Playing - StarCraft: Brood War

Battles in Civ4 are less random and even carry light RPG elements. I've never played Civ5 but from what I've heard, the combat in general is improved but the AI is too dumb to adjust to it.

The AI is super dumb in Civ 4 (and 3) as well, it's just that 5 having an interesting combat system makes it more obvious. the curtain is lifted and you can see that the AI doesn't always really understand the game it's playing.

Haven't played 5, but the AI cheats enough in the earlier games that having an advantage doesn't seem like too much of a bad thing (I never did well on difficulties above Prince). Every country hating your guts and declaring war on you as much as possible (but not on each other) was always really annoying.

--
All the stars in the sky are waiting for you.

4 and 5 are interchangeable based on preference.

5 has better combat and is "smoother", 4 has stacks of doom but better diplomacy.

and other stuff but that's really the gist of it

--
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcb35gGx0t1qailr4o1_500.gif
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=57N0YAEJ

Haven't played 5, but the AI cheats enough in the earlier games that having an advantage doesn't seem like too much of a bad thing (I never did well on difficulties above Prince). Every country hating your guts and declaring war on you as much as possible (but not on each other) was always really annoying.

It's like that in 5 as well. That's a weakness of the series, I think - they can't really make smarter AI so they just penalize you more for going up in difficulty. other civs get various bonuses, you get happiness penalties, etc. it's not swell and not really balanced. I think there's a good reason to play on normal difficulty and that's enjoyable, even if it's pretty easy.

3 was fun. If you already bought it, play it and enjoy it.

--
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n231/sihp/waluigi.gif
Congrats to Guru champ SuperNiceDog! All hail our Guru overlord.

in 3, roads everywhere is pretty much standard procedure. makes everything look ugly, but tactically sound.

in 5, roads have recurring costs so you only want them to go specifically where they need to.

as someone who has played both 3 and 5, i like 5 better for making combat much more interesting and even some of the graphical beauty. diplomacy still sucks balls, but still good games.

--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out

From: OmarsComin | #006
Any reason you're playing 3 over the vastly superior 4 and 5?

4 is far worse, don't have enough experience with 5.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. ~War13104
Never stoop to the level of idiots. They will drag you down and beat you with experience.

Civ 4 + expansions is $15 on Steam. If you've ever got that money lying around, I rec it, especially if you like 3. 4 is a lot like 3, just improved on pretty much every front.

From: OmarsComin | #024
Civ 4 + expansions is $15 on Steam. If you've ever got that money lying around, I rec it, especially if you like 3. 4 is a lot like 3, just improved on pretty much every front.

4 has one major improvement and a lot of things I didn't like whatsoever.

Played it seriously once and have never been able to make myself play it again, as I always end up going back to 3.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. ~War13104
Never stoop to the level of idiots. They will drag you down and beat you with experience.

pretty sure we've established you're a unique case before. the rest of the world likes 4 a lot more than 3!

From: Daranix | #007
I liked 3 more than 4.

I know, I'm a bad person.

OVERRULED *****

--
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. ~War13104
Never stoop to the level of idiots. They will drag you down and beat you with experience.

he realizes he's a bad person though so it's all alright

i have never seen meow actually explain why he hates 4 so much. :(

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

Three is the best Civ.

I disliked 4.

3>5>2>4 Never played the first

--
http://www.pentdego.com/prentjes/9049d5.jpg
11/1/11 - Error Day - The Day Error the Great freed us from the oppressive and short termed rule of Burgess.