civ 3 vs civ 2

Hi all civers I play civilization games since late '90 with civilization 2, but in these years I was just more grown up than a child (now i'm 25 years old).
Then I played civ 3 in 2004, and civ 4 in 2006, I played civ 4 for years, i was convinced that it was better (evolution) than old 2d civs, in the same way i was convinced that civ 3 was better than civ 2.

but two years ago, just for curiosity i came back to civ 3, and since that time i've never played civ4 anymore, because i understood that before i was wrong, civ 3 rules

in similar manner then i have tried civ 2, and i have loved it again too, ten years past.
I think many things are better in civ 2 than in civ 3, but civ 3 has many improvements and nice additions like the culture, so I still can't say which is better between 2 and 3.

In civ2 section I've read a not too old thread similar to this, there (predictably) have won civ2, so now i ask to you, is better 3 or 2?

i keep out from the question 3d civilizations, that i really dislike (not only for IMHO useless 3d engine, but for that i could define "philosophy", civ5 is for me more similar to a management facebook game instead of 2d civs, everything have been semplified, I can summarize this saying that the choices aren't between positive (useful) and negative (useless if not damaging), like what gov choose and when to switch to it in 2d civs
but in 4 and more in civ 5, the choices are in a simply manner between more positive and less positive, nothing is damaging for own nation, it's all more easy for player, he have less things to control. but i stop here, i may have many many things to say, and my english isn't good enough to write a long post withouth annoyng you )

Well I have played all five version. I always thought II was the best games ever, till I got III. I have not gone back to II. I think that says it all.

Too many huge issues with II for me, like 1 unit kills the whole stack. Spies. I did love the engineers and terraforming. I did not like 5, but did like 4, just not as much as III.

i think i remember that there was a limit of units to be killed by one attack, like 6 or 8 at once, not?

otherwise, same with me like vmxa puts it, only that i did not buy any Computer game after civ3...

civ2 was awesome with few even greater absurdities than civ3. still strange that they did not get a few things right in both otherwise very very good Versions that seem so obvious to so many of us now...

t_x

I loved civ 2, and civ 3 even more, tho i miss things like civil wars from civ 2. I really couldnt get much into civ 4. There were too many issues for me. Most annoyingly the fact that inflation keeps trying to make you finish the game. I like playing long games and inflation is super irritating to the point where it becomes unplayable around 2050. Civ 4 had nice things like religion, and some other diplomatic and economy things but over all it doesnt make up enough to be better than civ 3 imo.

I wish they would stop for a minute and go back to basics. We need a Civilization Conquests 2.0. I dont think i will be buying a lot of their products. I tend to buy when the original price drops to around 20 bucks and if i dont like it, i dont even bother with the xpantions.

Civ 5 is at 20 bucks right now but after civ 4's disappointment im still considering if i should buy it or not.

Back to topic civ 3 is the best for me.

If I really have to chose between II and III I would chose III because I really like the better diplomatic options, better AI, the higher number of nations on the map or the better depiction of different nations through traits and UU. I am also glad they got rid of individual unit support and I like the new city gouvernor to adress happiness issues and prevent revolts - this was really annoying in II. But it's still a though call. Civ II also was a lot of fun and there sure are things that Civ II did better.
I have to admit I prefer IV over III, but also this is a close call. All in all I think all four of the traditional Civ games were and still are great games. And although my focus is mostly on Civ IV I still go back from time to time to the older titles - for comparison, to try out a different strategy that worked in another part of the series or simply for nostalgic reasons. The only one I never really got into was Civ V.

Wow, this discussion is like 10 years late, isn't it...

I also loved Civ2, and played it in parallel for a while after Civ3 came out, because they were quite different games and I liked both of them.

What did I like better in Civ2? One point nobody has mentioned yet: the "Wonder Movies". Those were great, weren't they? Building a wonder in Civ2 and then watching the movie really felt like something! In Civ3 it doesn't feel that special any more.

Things that I liked better in Civ3: the way artillery and aircrafts work, the separation between "settler" and "worker", the enhanced diplomacy. In Civ2 you could basically declare war, make peace and trade techs, that's about it. In Civ3 the diplomacy and trade system entered a completely new dimension with things like resource trading, right of passage, protection pact, trade embargo etc.

There are more words to say for the case in favor of CivII...

For CivII:

It has an event life.

For CivIII:

Everything else.

templar_x said:

i think i remember that there was a limit of units to be killed by one attack, like 6 or 8 at once, not?

otherwise, same with me like vmxa puts it, only that i did not buy any Computer game after civ3...

civ2 was awesome with few even greater absurdities than civ3. still strange that they did not get a few things right in both otherwise very very good Versions that seem so obvious to so many of us now...

t_x

Click to expand...

The units killed by one attack issue was horrible...

You could pretty much lose a massive army in one term, by as little as three or four attackers...
The only defense there would be to also move a caravan of engineers so as to build a fort in one or two terns, cause in a form only one unit dies per attack.

Kyriakos said:

The units killed by one attack issue was horrible...

You could pretty much lose a massive army in one term, by as little as three or four attackers...
The only defense there would be to also move a caravan of engineers so as to build a fort in one or two terns, cause in a form only one unit dies per attack.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember a multiplayer game in which the opponent arrived with 6 catapults right in front of my city (I don't remember details, but I think it was my only city, it was the very beginning of the game) and I killed them all with one attack. The opponent has quit after that

I think Civ 3 is better in lots of ways, but the commerce route with caravans was pretty cool in Civ 2.

In the other hand, being capable of using the enemie's roads and railroads made the war strategy kinda pointless, besides you could stack a few diplomats and attack directly from the ship they were in, stealing techs

Lanzelot said:

Wow, this discussion is like 10 years late, isn't it...

Click to expand...

Never too late to discuss really great games...

Lanzelot said:

One point nobody has mentioned yet: the "Wonder Movies". Those were great, weren't they? Building a wonder in Civ2 and then watching the movie really felt like something! In Civ3 it doesn't feel that special any more.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Even the Civ IV wonder movies - although a nice try - don't feel as special as those in II did. I especially miss a/the wonder movie for the Apollo project.

The video for the Wonders is an excellent difference and one I remember noticing the first time I played Civ III, but had completely forgotten about while thinking about this topic.

Some of the really great aspects of Civ that were lost changing from II to III were:

Civil Wars
Engineers/Terra-forming
Howitzers
Aerial units which killed units rather than bombard them or destroy random structures
Static Tech costs
Meaningful Walls with a Great Wall Wonder to match, available from the start
Actual combat dominance based on stats rather than 'luck'
Grid View
Building cities on Mountains for uber defence

and

Am I right in thinking your palace was also able to have actual loot in it?

The changes which Civ III brought in which might be considered better were:

Culture Borders - no more awful gap-filler cities and pointless settler cramping
Cultural Conversion - the opportunity to win a city peacefully
Diplomatic and Cultural Victory Conditions - A chance to engage the game differently without prioritising total war
A more user friendly trade system - Managing those camels/llamas was a pain
Resources - A double-edged sword, can be fun, can be a game-killer
Small Wonders - The more the merrier
Armies - A nice player-only exploit to bash the irritating AI with
Great/Military Leaders - Rushing Wonders is so satisfying

But

I think the ugliest change was Corruption. Nothing worse for aesthetic players than utterly mind-numbing corruption levels which make even beautiful island locations seem like dirt-traps.

There were lots of other differences, but these are all I can think of writing now without the post becoming unreadably long. I think II is better, but III's peaceful option is a really cool trump-card.

Yes civil wars. I wish it would have stayed and it could also apply to human players. Believe or not i actually like the way fortresses worked in civ 2. There were times that i was trying to invade a nation and was gaining land an inch at a time. Capture a city also and partisans come out. It made conflicts feel as if the land was actually occupied by an enemy and not just a bunch of empty spaces with cities on it.

CivII great abilities which were not there in CivIII:

-Events file

-More flexible trade (caravan system could have played a role in the new trade mechanics...)

-Civil wars

-More importance to having viable cities than just a larger number of cities

And of all the above the Events file was by far the worst thing missing from CivIII, a real disappointment and i always maintained that it was not left out but deliberately omitted.

Oh and i actually liked when a stack of units was wiped by a single unit because it wasnt in a fort. It made u want to spread units and it was pretty fun.

^Some degree of "ground/tile can sustain x amounts of troops/weapons" has a point, and its lack in CivIII was bad, however the "kill 10 units with one blow" in civII was even worse

I think the ugliest change was Corruption.

Click to expand...

I only played C3C, so I was able to turn corruption down to 50% through the editor. Makes corruption so much more manageable.

My vote goes to Civ 3. I played Civ 2 extensively but as vmxa says, once I played Civ 3 I never went back to Civ 2.

However there were some features that I missed, especially the Council videos (remember your military advisor getting drunk because you were fighting a war). The Wonder videos were also a good feature and I still think the Space Victory video in Civ 2 is the best game-ending video I have seen in any game.

dalgo said:

The Wonder videos were also a good feature and I still think the Space Victory video in Civ 2 is the best game-ending video I have seen in any game.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said, but I think there's hardly any Civ video more fitting, more beautiful and more poetic than the Civ III spaceship video with the dandelion seeds beeing spread by the rocket boosters.