Well, thanks for commenting, all! And sorry I haven't been replying at all; I was busy with my studies. :P
Let me adress some of your comments(and get this topic going!)
Mariws: I've played both of the games and for me S3 is the definite winner. I don't have arguments as good as yours since my opinion is based mainly on feel and aesthetics. I really like the look of S3 but I cant say the same about S4, even the carriers look awful compared to S3 (i like them chubby). The only thing S4 has over S3 is the ability to mine stone.
But then again I might be heavily biased since S3 was my first RTS.
Well, even though I don't know what"strong arguments"you mean I am providing, I have to admit that I may be biased on my own(have been playing nearly uninterrupted Settlers IV for over 10 years now. XP But even I can see the big flaws and cons S IV has, like that horrible MP...).
And well, the looks are also a little subjective; I like the overall style in S IV better, but have to admit that asian and egipcian buildings in 3 look AWESOME(IMO, though, romans and amazons look a bit dull)... And the vikings are a little bit on the fat side, too. ;)
tinyE: I prefer #3 but it's because #4 always seemed to be in too big of a hurry. In #3 you can relax, build up, advance, take the game at your pace. It seems every other mission in #4 has you rushing your ass off just to keep from being overrun in the first five minutes.
Well, again, this may also be a little subjective and depend on our own skills in each of the games... But I have actually the opposite feeling; I'm in a hurry in S III because of that whole get-gold-quickly power-based system, having conquered some land doesn't always mean that you can see what's happening on it(a thing that I personally like, though XP ), the maximum map size being smaller as in S IV(so the first"encounter"may happen sooner) and in general the fact that I am not nearly as skilled as I am with S IV, even though it's the same basic gameplay. XD
Would you consider yourself being more skilled with S III, or evenyly skilled on both gameS? This would be an interesting point to discuss further.
Solaris2: I dont know if settlers 4 have a Community to play multiplayer online, Settlers 3 still have a Lobby and enough players to play...
Sadly, both online servers were shut down some years ago... Settlers III was brought back with fan effort, but as the MP stability for S IV is the worst thing the game has to offer, it doesn't seem like they even tried to bring it back. XD
But for private matches, Hamachi works just fine(just remember to save often!).
SlaxVice86: I myself, even if I like the way ornamental buildings work, prefer the gold-based military power better, if simply because of the fact that you can try to"steal"it.
Rhineland: On the other hand the "spiritual upgrading" in Settlers 3 has advantages too. The biggest one is that you are not dependent on a single ressource (gold) you either find or you don't, so you can always get better soldiers, at least in passive battles on your own soil. In theory, this is a very good idea.
But still, I see it the same way like you. Overall the gold-based upgrading (Settlers 4) is better, but for me this is not due to the stealing: With the offensive bonus you get from gold (Settlers 3), risky attacks are encouraged and become very powerful. The military of a player, who manages to claim the opponent's gold during an attack, gets stronger -- even if the attack was barely successful. This way he can push forward, although retreating would be the only viable option (without the gold).
Good and interesting point you are bringing on the table... It is true that it encourages that kind of playing(which can make a game rather interesting, IMO), but a few thieves could do the trick if your gold gets stolen.
Then again, some saboteurs(sorry, what's the english name? XD Those guys who destroy buildings, basically) can also harm an entire gold production chain in S IV. So actually both systems can be very fragile if you know where and when to hit. Having you chain broken in S IV usually still allow you to mantain your unit strenght, though.
On another point; what I really dislike is the fact that you can focus your defenses on one point in both games(the classic trick of maintaining only a castle in the most-difficult-to-reach point). Having little bonuses for every tower/castle the player builds could've also given the games some more strategy to them rather than just playing tower-defense with a castle. XD What do you guys think?
