Battle: Civ2 vs Civ3

Originally posted by farting bob
where would you put it tat is fair and widely used by civ 2 and 3 fans?

I have absolutely no idea. Maybe the civ1 discussion forums! :lol:
 
The winning is completely unfair. First, because there are more members participating in the civ3 forums, where they were stirred up by some users to go and vote on civ3. So actually, a forum that was almost exclusive to civ2 participants, was befouled by lots of raging civ3 participants. Second, most players that were contemporaneuous to civ2 don't play anymore and don't contribute to the forums. Third, voting for civ3 only because that way you feel yourself into a group (I'm one of the proud civ3 forums participants that defend civ3 to death), not because of a reasoning about the subject is lame and there are people here doing this, very childish, really.
 
I voted for Civ2. Much better combat, and better interface. Civ3 I've only just started playing though, as I finally got a computer that can work it.

Oh yeah, in Civ2 I can kill my enemies in one turn using massive blitzs, while in Civ3, I find I can no longer use their railroads. :)
 
I voted CIV2. I’m a CIV2-Fanatic of the Old School. Played that game since it was released, still going strong. CIV3 is good enough, but I’ll have to play it for a long time before it can make it up to the time spent on CIV2.
CIV2 Rulez!

Cimbri
 
Originally posted by PinkyGen
...in Civ3, I find I can no longer use their railroads.

Now that actually does make some sense. Most likely your enemy isn't going to let you take their trains and start driving all over their territory with them, although it should be possible to use some originating in your land (if your territories are connected by rail). OTOH, not being able to use enemy roads is ridiculous. What, I'm invading a country, but the roads aren't mine, so I can't use them?? As long as no unit occupies the road, my units should be able to traverse them as if they were my own.
 
Civ2 is better, because it's just a more enjoyable game (for me, anyway).

While Civ2 lacks all the good ideas and improved gameplay added to Civ3, it also completely lacks the poor choices that were made (and there are a few important ones).

For me, the deciding factor is the strategy aspect. Civ3 is more complex--and in that way it's better--but it's also less precise tactically. There's simply more left to chance. That's a big deal to me. Civ2 was hailed as the best strategy game ever. Civ3 is great, but it falls short of that.

And Civ2 stands out as more-reliable software. There's a long list of things to consider here, like fighting with the choppy mouse scrolling; glitches with movement; the sometimes-ambiguous combat results, etc. Simply put, Civ2 works better. And that makes Civ2 more fun to play.

Having said all that, I should also point out that I still think Civ3 is very cool. But I like Civ2 more.
 
Originally posted by nmcul


...OTOH, not being able to use enemy roads is ridiculous. What, I'm invading a country, but the roads aren't mine, so I can't use them?? As long as no unit occupies the road, my units should be able to traverse them as if they were my own.

I don't know about you but if as far as I understand, if an unit is to be behind enemy line... The last thing you want to do is charge full speed ahead on the roadway unless you want trouble. I suppose Civ3 simulates the cautious advancement through enemy territory by not allowing you to have the road and railroad bonus.
 
True, but you have to admit that Civ and Civ2 spoiled us with being able to use any available road/railroad. Sigh. I miss that.

Of course, this also means that the AI can't use my transport infrastructure to attack moi.
 
Murphy's 5th Military Law:
The problem with taking the easy road is the enemy has already mined it.
 
Back
Top Bottom