On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:51:16 -0600, BP <reply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>I never bought Civ4, as I've been happy enough playing Civ3 Conquests
>and I had heard that Civ4 has higher graphics requirements and also
>requires XP. I was recently told that Civ4 is vastly improved over
>Civ3, but have not yet heard back on my request for further details
>from the person who said this.
>
>I never play Civ3 online, only solo or in multiplayer with my kids on
>our home LAN. I rarely play random maps, preferring the "Conquest"
>scenarios and a couple of custom scenarios that I have made myself. I
>rarely play in the modern age, preferring the Middle Ages or Age of
>Discovery.
>
>Any advice on what attractions Civ4 would have over Civ3 for me?
The game play is smoother with less micromanagement. The issue of
super-high corruption making cities worthless is gone, pollution
doesn't affect the map, production overflows into the next item
without loss, and more like that.
The AI is smarter, and I think that the game balance is better
between units. Beyond The Sword expansion does a lot to beef up
peaceful operations, as well as war, and makes diplomacy nicer.
As a scenario player, Civ4 offers advantages because its
scenario/mod creation system is so powerful. More like Civ2's,
scenarios can go far from the normal Civ model into very different
realms. Between the Warlords expansion and BTS, you have a lot of
very fun scenarios to try out.
The higher graphic requirements and XP requirement aren't that bad
-- any new PC won't have a problem running it. The game is functional
on relatively modest graphics (intel GMA900 for example, Nvidia 5200).
More power means more details on screen, but at low detail, single
unit graphics and animations off, it still plays the same way.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
|
