Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Hi
i know it's a weird question but i need something to lose myself in on a daily basis..Lost my fiance and would like something to really immerse in.
as far as Civ 4 the late game is gets slow due to ling AI turns..Want to play mostly single player..Is it good compared to Civ?
also i posted awhile ago and i can see my previous post so i apologize if this is a double post.
Tom http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Sorry to hear about your loss http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Dominions 3 is definitely a great game. Up there with Civ, in my opinion. However, I feel that Civ4 has a far stronger single player game. While Dominions3 SP will challenge you, as a new player, for a good amount of time I don't think that it can compete with Civ4 in that arena.

That said, Dom3 totally blows away Civ when you turn to MultiPlayer. The range of strategies and tactics is just mind boggling, even after playing for some time. Ample room to lose yourself in!

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

if you like customizablitiy this is the game for you. i have played every civ up until civ4,why not civ 4? Because i have dominions.

If you like modding this is the game for you. If you like player made mods, same.

buy it.

And join MP, there are two diffrent ways to join mp games on servers or play by email, both are free.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

This game is far more complex than Civ 4. Civ 4 is awesome because over the decades they game has become incredibly streamlined and the game has a general big budget polish. But it's also pretty straightforward, Civ 4 never got "boring" for me but the games frequently played out the same way, and they really bogged down once you got to the late game.

Dominions 3 on the other hand will take you hours and hours just to get a handle on the game's intricacies. Then after you think you've got a handle on it, if you play as a different nation it's like starting all over. And there's so many nations, even the vets haven't necessarily played them all. This is a good thing though, this game will keep you occupied for years if you want it to. The incredible complexity of Dominions 3 makes it the perfect game to get lost in.

Civ 4 wins on graphics and streamlined interface, but part of playing Dominions 3 single player is learning how to manage your nation with the minimum amount of micromanagement. Once you get it figured out the game moves at a good pace. I play full games with me vs. all the AI nations and turn generation is usually under 5 minutes on an old crappy laptop. For a reasonably powered desktop I think turns can generate in a minute or two. This is also subject to how you set up the games. If there are 1500 provinces of course the turns will take a little longer.

You can also read a review of it here:
http://www.odstudios.com/article.php?anum=311

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

IMHO Civ4 is a better single player game (though dom3 is still plenty fun single player).

Dom3 is a MUCH better MP game though (the best 4x turn based MP game I've ever played actually).

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

thanks all..you've been helpful.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Every time someone asks if dom3 is worth buying, I always feel the need to give them this answer:

If you are willing to use player made mods, Dom3 has more content (in terms of units, spells, nations, graphics etc) than you could ever hope to get tired of.

If you are willing to mod, Dom3 is one of the most mod friendly games ever and the amount you can do is surprising.

If Dom3 had no modding, I wouldn't be half as into it as I am. As it stands, I will keep playing it for years to come. I wish it had better SP, but the MP is so strong that it almost makes up for it.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Well, to put it simply, I'm a Civ Fanatic. And I love Civ 4. That said, after Dom 3 came out, I haven't played Civ 4 at all. (I must confess to taking a break to play Galactic Civilizations 2 every once in while though).

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Civ 4 is a really weak game with many stupid solutions. It was a good game many many years ago [well, not 4, but civ 1 & 2], but it cannot compare to Alpha Centauri or Dominions. I have tried to play Civ4 recently but it isn't fun. All that vassals, fighting archers with tanks and so on...

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I agree with Zeldor, the improved graphics killed the modding frenzy you had with civ 2 (hundreds of scenario).
I play mostly SP in most games, and I think civ 4 is no match to dom 3 on this point of view.( currently taking dust in its box...)
As the MP part as mutch fans, it is a good bonus !

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Civ 1 is the greatest game ever. It is the founding father of the entire genre of 4X games and the great-great grandfather of Dom 3.

Civ 2,3 and 4 are upgrades of Civ 1, but the same strategy that I used in Civ 1 was still successful in the three subsequent versions, requiring only minor adaptions to the details that changed.

Dom 3 is vastly superior to Civ 2,3 and 4. (Sorry KO & JO, but nothing but an entirely new game type can knock Civ 1 off the top perch on the pantheon.) Dom 3 has vastly more complexities and is much more challenging than the Civ series. Dom 3 is a paper/scissors/rock game with unending variables and the Civ series are merely about power and research and all stem from the number of cities.

In Civ, if you have the biggest guns you win. In Dom 3, your big guns can be turned into limp noodles in front of your unbelieving eyes.

Dom 3 also has a greater variety of sites that have a chance of significently altering the game. While some probably curse their bad luck and the unfairness of the game in not getting a great site and others rejoice when they are blessed, I think these are great variables that dwarf the influence of a coal/horse/banana site in Civ.

In Civ, there is limited stratgic differences between nations. In Dom, you need a different strategy not only for every nation, but also for which nations are your immediate neighbors.

All in all, I am a major Civ fan. My Civ playing was cited in my divorce. (Guilty as charged, and the major factor why I will not MP; a smart Polack doesn't get burnt by hot Kielbasa twice.) But I find Dom 3 preferable by a wide margin to Civ 4. I played Civ 4 for about 3 months, but it really was the same game I've been playing for 20 some odd years. I've been playing Dom3 for 9 months now and still haven't figured it out.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

The AI processing gets longer in Dom3 as well. I don't play most games to extinction of other races, but they tend to get longer and longer.

I think that the SP mode to Dom3 is challenging (to a newbie to me) and MP will regularly clean your clock.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Late game in Dom 3 can be at least as boring as in Civ 4. Make sure you set victory conditions to f.e. victory points else you'll have a boring end game chasing the last atlantian out of its last sea province.
Dom3 is very moddable. Of course, contrary to Civ 4, you can't mod everything since you don't have the source code, so people who tell you that dom3 is great because of its mods are not comparing it to civ4, as civ4 is 100% more moddable.
Civ4 can be extremely enjoyable. The Fall from Heaven II mod, where everything is remade, magic added in the game, where the world changes based on your actions (armaggeddon counter) changes the gameplay more than any dominions mod can ever hope to.
This said, I like dom3 more because there's always so much to discover in this game.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

thank you..it's getting ordered..Hope at 61 I'm not to dumb to figure it out..lol
Tom

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Gamers are a tougher lot than the normal run of humanity, so nothing to worry about.

There are many advocates for mental gymnastics for maintaining your faculties. But I had to laugh at a TV commercial I saw the other evening; some middle aged adult was playing a hand held game requiring him to choose between a "plus" sign, "minus" sign, etc as a technique to maintain his sharpness as he aged. Obviously an attempt to seperate the butter knives of the world from their money.

One bit of advice for you. This game does not play like Civ. It has many superficial similarities to Civ, but if you try to play it like Civ, you will get your butt kicked. I did.

Of course, that is how you will learn to play the game.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

In my opinion Dominions is better than CIV_4 because you have more control over the battles and units. CIV_4 has the same battle interactions as all previous CIV versions... which is Unit_A bumps into Unit_B and battle results are determined by formula XYZ.

Dominions series allows you to specify where individual units of an army stand in battle, what enemy groups melee units target, what spells mages cast in the first five rounds of combat, what items are being worn by your commanders and a more detailed list of statistics than CIV_4.

CIV_4 allows for larger maps using the smart map tool, it's too bad Dominions doesn't have a smart map tool allowing gamers to increase the commander and unit limits within the game because 10 years from now 99% of everyone will have upgraded their computers. CIV_4 also has a more developed AI, but Dominions_4 will hopefully have a scriptable AI. I know Dominions_4 is not the next project being developed, but I believe it will be coming to us one day.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

hmm... I can't believe that people are so negative about civ 4.

Civ 4 is just such a great improvment on earlier versions.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

It is impossible to like Civ4 if you played Alpha Centauri... if they made Civ4 on that I would play that again. In Civ4 every game comes down to 2-3 opponents [some nations plus their vassals] + some weak nations that are smaller challange than indies in Dom3. Civ4 is like Dom3 with research and gem income based only on number of your provinces. Imagine playing that.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I like Civ4, I loved Alpha Centauri but dominions beats them both. I cant believe I am still playing Dom3 after nearly a year and enjoying it.

Even other much loved games such as GC2 and MOO2 never held my interest for so long.

The patches help alot to keep my interest.

The 'new project' that Illwinter is working on will after be fantastic to compare with Dom3.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I'm with Folket, Civ 4 is an excellent game. The best in the series, certainly.

Any beefs you have with that game specifially are more due to the genre than anything else. The gameplay has gotten to be so polished and streamlined that I don't understand where the gripes are coming from.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

That was my experience. I loved Civ I and Civ II. Played Alpha Centauri, then tried both Civ III & IV and was left cold.

Dominions scratches the same itch, but is even deeper.

I'd still go back to play Alpha Centauri, if some upgrade hadn't broken it's compatibility with Linux install.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I am not saying Civ 4 is a bad game. But look at it from my perspective. I'm a few weeks short of 56, so I played all the Civ games the day they were released and when they were state of the art. I am still a major Civ fan. Civ 1 broke new ground in the gaming world. The others 3 were the same game with improvements, many in gameplay, but mostly in graphics.

Dom 3 is Civ 1 with an increase of complexity by several magnitudes. Civ 2, 3 and 4 are Civ 1 with an increase of complexity of several multiples. Therein lies the difference.

By saying I like Dom 3 more than Civ 4 I am not downgrading the Civ 4.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Yeah, Civ 4 is highly polished but very derivative. It's great, but very familiar. Sometimes familiar is what you want, but Dominions is like a brand new adventure every time.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I find that civ 4 is very diffrent from earlier civs.

Civ 1 was a great game, 2 and 3 was allmost the same. Civ 4 was the first civ that changed the gameplay.

I also agre on that Alpha Centauri is also a great game. At the moment I will not compare it to civ 4, but it was better then 2 and 3.

Dom3 is really a great game but I would say that most people will enjoy civ 4 more.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Alpha Centauri !!! what memories. sigh.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Has anybody tried the "Freeciv" ?

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Freeciv is like Civ2 but with worse sprites and better multiplayer support. I like it alot.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Alpha Centauri is way better than Civ III and IV. I still play it time to time. But for MP, no turn based strategy comes close with Dominions III, let alone equals. All in my opinion, of course.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I pretty much agree with everything here. Civ4 is a wonderful, polished, fairly deep 4x turn based game. It's glaring problems are it's lack of originality (it doesn't really change much from its originals) and it's horrible MP play.

I played civ4 for awhile and admired it but I tired of it quickly because I felt as if I'd already played "that game" to death.

Of course - you could say the same thing about Dom3 just being an updated Dom2, but then I never really played Dom2 so the whole game feels fresher to me.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I heard Sid is making the sequal to this...

Anyone know if its true?

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Not sure about the Alpha Centuri sequel yet I do know Sid and crew have hired a developer who focuses purely on improving/creating the Artificial Intelligence. An important step for a great need within all PC games.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Velusion:

I hope it's true... but I've heard EA has rights to Alpha Centauri, so we are rather doomed.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I agree with those saying AC is still the greatest civ like game. Everything was so nice ! You could even hand make each and all of your units...

It wouldn't have been so difficult to implement in Civ 4, but I guess the commercials (I could have been one of them....) said : Oh no ! Let us sell some expansion packs to satisfy their envy of variety.

If EA or Firaxis bought Dom license, they would give us 3-6 nations for the same price, the rest coming up in those darn expansions.( maybe with nicer graphics, but when I want to see a nice tree, I go in the forest...)

As for the mods, almost none is ready yet, I guess making 3D mods is really time consuming. (The only one not beta is about WW2...)(talking civ 4 mods)(issuing an extension (payable) every six months doesn't help modding either)

Another thing I hate in civ 3&4 are the national units : I find it racist and straightforward. Like if the destiny of humanity was written forever by some mad old Norns : It seems like you don't have to make any effort to have top elite troops. (did you know german engineers naturally known how to build a super tank ?)

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

No. They did so mostly because no ai has ever been able to handle hand tailored units correctly. SMAC and MoO are good examples I believe. Read what Soren Johnson wrote, you should see it was a thought out design decision, not a marketting one.
Yeah, there were 3-6 civs in civ4 out of the box???? Come on.
The only one not in beta? You aren't talking about Fall from Heaven II? Ever tried it? Please do. Call it a beta if you like, it's got more functionality than any mode made for any game I ever saw, and is very stable. Dismiss FfH and FfH II if you like, but then look at mods like Sevomod, Rhye's and Fall... Plus there are other small mods, almost like tools (map scripts for instance), and mods which got included into the game (like the score graph).
I agree that 3D makes modding longer, but there are mods out there, including Blue Marble whose only effect is to change the terrain (so purely 3D cosmetics).
It's not like it was an option you couldn't turn off. You can. Sure, I don't like it much either, but you can play without.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

LDiCesare:

There is one civ in civilization, just cosmetic differences. And you do not need to adjust a gameplay according to enemy nation. But probably they wouldn't sell many copies if they made a challenging and good game, not just pretty [the same goes for Europa Universalis, which is really weak game with wasted potential]. And don't forget that vanilla civ was only a beta or even alpha version without many obvious and important things. And it was made only so they can release expansions and take money for them.

Only thing I can agree are mods - there are some finished ones with a game.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

> [the same goes for Europa Universalis, which is really weak game with wasted potential]

It is?

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Kristoffer O:

Don't tell me you like it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Historical version of Dominions would be 100x better than EU. EU 3 has extremely dumb AI, imbalanced and ahistoric nations, only few playable countries, only one map, not even mentioning diplomacy [mainly peace system] and seizing colonies.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Actually I never played it. It seemed a bit hard to get into http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Which tells me I would never ever play dominions unless I was guided through the whole process of learning how to play it.

I just thought it was a good game.

Nowdays I lack patience and only play roguelikes and fast paced games like Guild Wars, which I no longer have patience to play well.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Kristoffer O:

EU players have very closed society and they do not welcome criticism there. Something similar to iPod worshippers [or take any other example you like]. They made an extremely stupid way of conquering territories [you must conquer it and then convince them to sign a peace giving it to you, which is based on war score and some very random throws, so to get 1 province you need to conquer 40 one time and you can get lucky and be losing that 40 provinces to AI and then get white peace and give nothing].

And I prefer Enemy Territory: Quake Wars when I have no patience and my brain does not want to do what I want him to do.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I like a lot of the Paradox games, although EUIII didn't appeal much, and I hang around the forums there a lot. I haven't ever noticed people being any more fanatical than any other game forum and plenty of criticism goes on.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I quite liked EU2 and I heard EU3 was basically improved in all aspects. Anyway, I prefer dom3 to both.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Nethack or Angband? :p

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

So i guess nobody here likes Victoria? How does EU3 compare to Vicky?

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Victoria is probably one of the best game ever created. I find the econimic modell somewhat weak but the game has huge potentials.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I love victoria too. you really have to be a hard core gamer to play it though.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Recently incursion. Dungeon Crawl before that. Adom before that.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I think incursion shows a lot of promise. I'm still not sold on the interface, although it has improved. The promising part is that there is so much to do, and almost all of it is fun. If the bugs get worked out, I think it has a shot to rival Crawl.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

What's Incursion like? I take it's based on D&D. Army has left me out of the roguelike scene for a while.

I also started with ADOM (tried others, but ADOM was the first serious one), moved to Crawl, and never had patience to try Nethack or *bands. I did have fun with DoomRL and DwarfFortress when they were released, but they got old pretty fast. I'll probably try DF again when the big update comes...

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

What are Incursion and Victoria? I've never heard of either until now...

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

They're working on Civilization Revolution at the moment, the console version of Civ. He's thrown around doing a Civ V in the future in interviews, but I haven't seen AC mentioned so I wouldn't count on seeing another AC anytime soon, but we could always be surprised.