Comparing it to Civ 4..

[Edratman]

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.