Civ 2 versus Civ 3: Bring It!!!!!!!!

[Magnus]

Originally posted by ManinBlack
Civ 2 is better. Im sorry but Civ 3 doesnt have the magic. Yeah the AI's good but to tell the truth it takes far to long to do anything I've had it since it came out and havent finished it once. Sid Meir has dissilusioned me

AMAZING!

That's the very reason why I love Civ3 so much! In civ2 it felt like everything was breezing by, whereas in Civ3 it really does feel like you are running an empire of the ages. I enjoy the fact that my games take several days to finish! And with the 16 unique cultures you get to feel the experience 16 different ways, rather than the one way of the cookie-cutter civs in civ2.

 

[Genuis]

I am going to say that Civ 2 was the better game just because it kept me occupied longer... I played Civ 3 less than a month before I got Empire Earth but Civ 2 I played off and on for more than a year mixed with some Age of Empires time. From time to time I still install it to play the WWII scenario as the Russians.

 

[Kefka]

I vote Civ 3
in Civ 3 I finnally can live and not have People walking near my city all the FU#$^@ng time!
In Civ1 it was the worst!
personally I think thats why civ games had Zones of control, just so you can actually block your border!
In civ3 I can play the game and not have 50 units a turn crowding around my City
AND
when the AI Invades you in Civ3 they actually INVADE YOU!

 

[Hari Seldon]

Duhhh... still think civ2 has things to offer that civ3 doesn't have:

* movies of wonders, mentioned before - and beautifull made that gave you the right ooze of the game.

* Better ability to make units and change things in the *.txt files instead of re4placing hard coded files

* Most important: the certain feeling that whenever you want you could slip in your civ2 disc - no matter what the wife said - and be sure you had a GOOD time

 

[IronicWarrior19]

A lot of people here seem to be the kind who played civ2, but never played MP, or who are new to the game. For this reason I'll resist the temptation to scream my head off at the results of the poll, and will go through a couple points that I feel make civ2 the far superior game.

1 - Strategic flexibility: Civ2 presented the player with many options all throughout the game. What government to go for? What techs to research? Who to attack, what cities to attack, where to explore, where to expand, how many cities to build, what units to build, what wonders to build, when and which improvements to build, and many more. Civ3 includes many of these choices, but others have been removed or the impact of choosing one over another has been dulled.

For example, now, when a player's capital is captured, it automatically moves to another usually nearby city. In civ2, the only way you could do this is if you had at least 1000 gold - it cost to relocate after your capital was captured. I have devastated many a civ and won many games by capturing my opponent's capital. It gives an important city to go for in an attack, one that can cripple the opponent if they lose it and thus a lot of strategic planning can go into taking and holding an opponents capital city and/or his wonder city. In civ3, it'll just relocate, so the only strategically important cities are the wonder cities. To make matters worse, cities culturally swap so easily that there will be no point trying to hold the city, it is far better just razing the city instead, thus the strategy involved in holding the city is removed too.

Second, wonders have been limited too. In civ2, a lot of planning went into making sure you have enough caravans to build a wonder when you get the tech for it. In civ3, now there is no such choice. The only way to plan for a wonder is to prebuild some shields towards the wonder. Even doing this it just means the person who got to work on the wonder first is going to finish it, unless you get really lucky and get a great leader. So basically it means the person who is in the lead in tech is going to finish wonders first, and a lot of that can go down to luck in start position. Not good.

Another strategically limiting factor is the lack of choice in techs. Now tech is split into several ages, artificially limiting the number of choices that you can make. As an example of what I used in civ2, in 2x2x small map duels, my tech path was horseback riding -> ceremonial burial -> alphabet -> code of laws -> monarchy, and afterwards in some cases warrior code -> feudalism -> chivalry. Now in civ3, the latter two techs would be put into the medieval era, thus I could not choose to research them. Thus, my choice of tech path is being artificially limited by the game, I need 15-20 other techs just so that I can go for these! An artificial limit with no reason behind it. And tech research is so slow, I am going to be forced to research a lot of techs that I have no use for whatsoever simply to get to what I want.

Another to look at is governments. In civ2, monarchy/republic were huge improvements over despotism, and the early game choice was to go for either monarchy, or republic. It was a long time before it was decided which government was the best to go for, and as it happens, it matters on the situation that you are in. However, in civ3, there is no reason to ever go for monarchy, as despotism is a far superior wartime government. Republic is not a very good one to go for either, due to the amount of time it takes to get there, due to the fact that you still have enormous corruption in it, and due to the fact that you cannot go to war without huge unhappiness penalties, even in a defensive war. Thus your choices are being hurt right from the start.

Another problem I will go through is roads. Roads are important in both civ2 and civ3 for transport and trade. They were also useful in attacking a civ - take control of their roads in an attack and you can capture cities much faster. However, in civ3 even this has been removed. Now you cannot use roads very effectively in an attack regardless of what the opponent does, because it's in his culture boundary. Thus the opponent can just sit there, taking no precautions, and be secure in the knowledge that you cannot blitz through his civ unless you have hundreds of fast units. Not a good thing in my opinion, because it has again taken some of the planning and strategy out of the game. Many games I have won and lost by taking or losing control of my road network.

Yet another problem is cities. In civ2, it was generally a good thing to have more cities. There are ways of building up a few cities to large size and high trade/production rapidly, but generally the best way to win is to have plenty of cities. It's your call weather you build 20 or 100. In civ3, there is no such flexibility. There is a fixed number of cities which is ideal depending on the size of the map, or if you're in despotism all you have to do is build hundreds of cities and rush out the units/improvements.

A final problem I will go through is culture. Culture is a great idea at first glance. Playing the actual game though, you realise there are problems. Why bother capturing a city when three turns later it's going to revolt? Why bother garrisoning a captured city with ten units when it can still revolt and you can lose virtually all you army? There should be no way a city with half as many military units in it never mind with twice it's population in units should be able to revolt - how would the population pull this off? The game should be called Genocide 3 really, as all I do when I go to war is raze cities unless I can blitz through my opponents empire in a few turns! Sure I feel like I'm controlling an empire, the Mongol empire or the Huns, not the Babylonians or Chinese! Not like in Civ2 when an opponents captured empire would be very beneficial to my production and it generally wasn't a great thing to destroy all their cities. Culture could be implemented well, but in my opinion it should be done in such a way that undefended cities are the only ones that can flip, and other cities generate partisan type units appropriate to the technology of the invaded civ (for example warriors, archers, knights, etc). This would give you a reason to garrison cities and slow down invasions without making city capture pointless.


2 - Suitability for MP - Ok, civ2 wasn't the most ideal game for multiplay. A lot of people might find it slow/boring although certain settings can help alleviate that problem. A lot of people here seem to think that civ3 is going to be a great game for multiplay. However, in my opinion this is not going to be the case, for several reasons.

First, the game is slow. I've played 7 player medium map games in MP, and the wait between turns can become almost unbearable. There's nothing worse than waiting a few minutes in the early game just to move a couple units, and waiting 10-20 minutes in the later game waiting for players to move. Civ2 ran like the wind on my pc, but civ3 is slow even in single play. There was a simultaneous play option, but it was poorly implemented (the host players units could move faster and wipe out your army before you even got a chance to move) and required a few modifications to the game files. I dread to think what multiplay will be like in civ3 - I don't want to be waiting 20 minutes in the early game!

Another problem is the lack of strategic choices - the way the game is set up there is much less of a gap between good players and beginners, which is a bad thing in my opinion. Look at the previous section for examples of this.

Strategic resources cause a problem now too. Too much of the game now goes down to start position alone, which is really bad. Start positions were a major source of complaint in civ2, but now, imagine the advantage if you by chance get control of all the iron on the map. I for one would never trade it, I'd simply build hundreds of swordsmen and start conquering. There is nothing my opponents can do about it either, I will dominate the game early on. And it is harder to catch up in techs too, because diplomats have been removed. That's okay in SP, but disaster in MP as without trading there is no way to get the techs you need.


Summary: Civ2 in general offers far more choices to the player than civ3. Although civ3 offers many new features, most of them are not implemented well and thus they do not add to the game and in some cases can seriously detract from the enjoyment. Because of how slow the game runs and because of the limited strategic choices and poorly implemented features of the game, it will not without considerable modifications be viable for multiplay.

 

[Troyens]

IronicWarrior19, you are so right. "Not implemented well", indeed.


The tech tree is very limiting. If I'm stuck on an island and want to beeline to naval advances, I cannot. That is one example. I could do it on Civ II.

Enemy capitals? What a joke. I had the Aztecs lose their capital four turns in a row, and each time it went to another city - a big help for the Aztecs. And no "civil war", which also hurts the attacker.

Enemy roads? Yes, the invader is hurt their, also. If they wish to stop an invasion on the roads, just PILLAGE THEM, as the Soviets did in 1941.

Naval warfare is an even bigger joke than in Civ 2.

Culture flipping cities (and vanishing garrisons), and borders that move costing you improvements, also sucks.

1. Airlift capacity for elephants, tanks, and cavalry. None of this is possible (or ever happened) in reality.

2. Ocean-going AI galleys.

3. Absurdly high Espionage costs, and spies of limited efficacy.

4. No way to use privateers or subs to harm an enemy's trade.

5. Workers wandering around your territory who won't leave.

6. Very stubborn Diplomatic AI.

7. Much too high corruption.

8. Much too rare strategic resources.

9. Somewhat too easy culture flipping.

10. Disappearing garrisons in culture flipping cities.

11. Disappearing garrisons and colonies when the AI builds a city near you.

12. Land-grabbing AI settlers building cities right next to you or in deserts, grabbing land and resources or cutting your road network.

13. Some weird military unit values (Privateers, subs, ironclads, et al, too low).

14. Lack of Historical realism: Immortals did NOT have swords; galleys did NOT fire broadsides; and War elephants were lousy on defense, among other thins.

15. The Editor has limitations, and the inability to zoom on the map is a major one.

16. Lack of truly depicting the importance of Great Leaders in battle. Army units don't cut it.

17. No Cheat Mode.

18. No scenario-building capability.


And on and on. . . No, Sid did not implement this well at all.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Well folks, I want to thank you all for humoring me with your participation on this poll.

The conclusion of the matter seems to be that the civ 3 board is dominated by Civilization rookies and newbies and thus they have the unfortunate proclivity towards the highly inferior civ 3 and this is reflected in the poll.

The supremacy of civ 2, however, has clearly been attested to by the brilliant expositions of the series by the likes of ironic warrior and friends.

Well good night fair chaps,

I have made my choice to sell...no dammit, go out on the street and hand my worthless collectors edition civ 3 tin and contents to the first homeless person i see...perhaps he can make use of it as a faesces repository or something...

anyway im outtie, back to gloat over those amazing wonder videos...


ed

 

[Ironikinit]

Bwahahaha. Civ rookie indeed, I've been playing since 91, junior. Go back to the Civ II boards.

Things Civ III has that's better than Civ II.

Better graphics. I mean, if you're going to bemoan the lack of eye candy like wonder movies, you have to give Civ III credit for greater detail and better appearance.

Resources provide strategic challenge and motivation.

Culture boundries are a more realistic way to mark territory.

Much, much, tougher AI.

Civ II usually was a runaway right from the start, and that goes for MP too. I read online that one player blowing the others away was the top reason given for unfinished multiplayer games. In Civ III, the human has to come from behind even on relatively easy levels.

More opponents.

Civs are much more individualized.

More ways to win.

Fewer exploits. (Can't use caravans to rush wonders, unbalancing fundie gov't removed, WLTKD doesn't let the human have a population boom, etc.) Exploits in Civ III were limited in last patch, and I assume more will be taken care of in next.

Corruption limits empire size to somewhat more realistic levels.

More honest game. No cheat mode and reload cheat countered.

Easier to customize with editor instead of messing with text files. Stop living in the past, you luddites.

Streamlined tech tree.

Much better application of concept of combined arms with retreat and bombard.

More diplomatic options with alliances, RoP and MPP.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Things Civ II has that's better than Civ III.

Multiplayer. BFD.

Scenarios. Again, BFD.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Well folks, I want to thank you all for humoring me with your participation on this poll.

The conclusion of the matter seems to be that the civ 3 board is dominated by Civilization rookies and newbies and thus they have the unfortunate proclivity towards the highly inferior civ 3 and this is reflected in the poll.

The supremacy of civ 2, however, has clearly been attested to by the brilliant expositions of the series by the likes of ironic warrior and friends.

Well good night fair chaps,

I have made my choice to sell...no dammit, go out on the street and hand my worthless collectors edition civ 3 tin and contents to the first homeless person i see...perhaps he can make use of it as a faesces repository or something...

anyway im outtie, back to gloat over those amazing wonder videos...


ed

 

[Magnus]

tsk tsk edmund spenser, now really. what sour grapes you spew! the poll is clear: (at the time of my writing) 106-39 votes in favor of Civ3, the clear winner. The people at Civfanatics have spoken.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

'Bwahahaha. Civ rookie indeed, I've been playing since 91, junior. Go back to the Civ II boards.'

Umm, it's not how long you've been playing, it's range of experience. I've been playing Civ for 5 years, but trust me I would kick your ass if I played you in MP. So yes, to me you are a rookie.

'Better graphics. I mean, if you're going to bemoan the lack of eye candy like wonder movies, you have to give Civ III credit for greater detail and better appearance.'

I think no real hardcore player would complain about wonder movies. I watched one in my whole time playing Civ2. And Civ3 graphics might be better, but they're also less clear than Civ2 ones and really aren't that impressive when compared to other new games.

'Resources provide strategic challenge and motivation.'

In single play, true. In multiplay, they WILL imbalance the game hugely. If one guy gets lots of luxuries he'll be at a huge advantage. If he also gets all the Iron and there are several players without horses, then he's won the game. Go out and conquer. Any player with intelligence would not want to lose their monopoly on certain units.

'Culture boundries are a more realistic way to mark territory.'

Perhaps. They got this right, but it's silly how in 3000BC you can see before you even reach an opponents city their culture boundary. And other facets of culture are flawed as I described.

'Much, much, tougher AI.'

The AI isn't actually that much smarter. If you look closely you will see THE RULES WERE DESIGNED TO MAKE THE AI HARDER! For example now you can stack units which the AI did in Civ2 all the time and it does it in 3 all the time. It's a shock some of you people haven't noticed this.

'Civ II usually was a runaway right from the start, and that goes for MP too. I read online that one player blowing the others away was the top reason given for unfinished multiplayer games. In Civ III, the human has to come from behind even on relatively easy levels.'

One player blows away the other generally because they are more skilled. In Civ3 there is much less difference between a skilled player and a newbie, a bad thing in mp opinion.

'More opponents.'

Good for single play, although it gets slow. I can't imagine a 16 player MP game ever happening.

'Civs are much more individualized.'

Good for SP, horrible for MP. No one with any intelligence will play with unique attributes in MP because they just increase the game's luck factor even more.

'More ways to win.'

Good for SP, useless for MP as no games will get that far.

'Fewer exploits. (Can't use caravans to rush wonders, unbalancing fundie gov't removed, WLTKD doesn't let the human have a population boom, etc.) Exploits in Civ III were limited in last patch, and I assume more will be taken care of in next.'

Now that's got to be one of the worst loads of trash I've ever read on here. Caravan wonder rushing was put into the game. It's no an exploit, unless you classify an exploit as anything the AI can't do. It meant you could PLAN for when a wonder came, rather than just sticking one city onto building the wonder and hoping for the best. The same with fundamentalism, a horrible government for science in MP, pick it if you have all the techs you need unless you want to fall behind. WLTKD was a way of making an empire with few cities viable. Now it's been removed the only option there is is build more cities.

'Corruption limits empire size to somewhat more realistic levels.'

It also means it's worthless having overseas colonies and worthless conquering an enemy too far away. Just raze the cities and enslave the population, Genocide 3 style!!! Also remember the British empire, or the colonial empires over history? Don't give me that **** about realistic empire sizes. You can't tell me that America, Australia, Canada, India, and Africa were ALL worthless can you?

'More honest game. No cheat mode and reload cheat countered.'

Easy enough to write a program to modify saves. There is no honest game, and remember, you couldn't access cheat mode in multiplay Civ2.

'Easier to customize with editor instead of messing with text files. Stop living in the past, you luddites.'

There was an editor in Civ2 also. You're a really cool guy, I can see that now. The editor in Civ3 is useless. You can't even create a scenario or place civs in historical starting positions on maps.

'Streamlined tech tree.'

The tech tree is ridiculous. What does polytheism have to do with monarchy? I won't even start to go into the other inconsistencies and the LIMITATIONS it places on you by forcing you into a set tech path.

'More diplomatic options with alliances, RoP and MPP.'

Won't be used much in MP though, I guarantee it.

'Things Civ II has that's better than Civ III.'

I think I should take over here. Civ2 got the game balance right, it was easy to learn, fast and fun to play. Civ3 is unbalanced, forces you into a set way of playing, and is slow. Read my long post, for heavens sake, and tell me what is incorrect about what I said.

 

[Zachriel]

On MP, there is a great deal of luck in the starting position. Despite the many improvements that could be made to the game, Civ3 is fun.

Indeed, the numbers of suggested improvements (some practical, some not), indicates that Civ is alive and well, and sparking the imagination of its players.

 

[damunzy]

I voted for Civ3 but I think the vote is tainted by those that did have a chance to play Civ2 before trying out 3. Even though there are great problems, the one on the top of my list is corruption and the inability to turn it off.
MP, it is a big deal but for me but I care very little about scenarios right now, but who knows how I may feel in the future.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by IronicWarrior19
1 - Strategic flexibility: Civ2 presented the player with many options all throughout the game. What government to go for? What techs to research? Who to attack, what cities to attack, where to explore, where to expand, how many cities to build, what units to build, what wonders to build, when and which improvements to build, and many more. Civ3 includes many of these choices, but others have been removed or the impact of choosing one over another has been dulled.

Laughable. Have you actually played more than a couple of games of Civ 3 at anything above Chieftan level? I agree that there are plenty of problems with Civ 3, but the one area where it completely outshines 2 is in the strategy required to win. City location actually makes a difference in 3. Some of your cities may never grow past size one or two. They're only good as strategic territory holders, resource colonies, etc. You actually have to plan out those of your cities that will be the huge production cities in which you can build wonders. In civ2 there was never a question as to how many cities to build or where to build them. You built as many as was possible. Never thought it required much strategy or planning to buy wonders.

Actions that you take during war and diplomacy have tangible results on your reputation with other civs in civ3.

The strategic and luxury resources in civ3 actually give a reason to wage war and a target for your attacks. Simply gunning for an enemy capital and thereby being able to crush an entire civ was unrealistic and too easy in Civ2.

I was always able to build more of the wonders in civ2 than in civ3. Now I have to decide on those that are the most important. Same goes for city improvements. Not all of my cities get banks anymore. Sometimes I have to build military units to actually defend against a craftier AI.

Most of your complaints have nothing to do with an actual comparison between the games, Civ2 and Civ3. They all seem to hinge on the fact that Civ3 doesn't have MP yet. I, for one, hope Firaxis does not waste any time on developing MP for Civ3 as it will take too much time to develop it and I doubt anyone is going to enjoy what will surely be several hour long turns in the latter stages. I'd rather see them devote resources toward a real editor and fixing some of the bugs in the game.

 

[Ironikinit]

You know, it's annoying when people say "read my post" when I just responded to it.

IronicWarrior, just because you haven't complained at the lack of wonder movies doesn't mean that other people haven't, namely, Edmund. Plenty of others have as well. Also, we're comparing Civ II and Civ III, not Civ III and other games. Civ III has better graphics, please don't try to weasel on this point.

I have plenty of experience playing Civ and I don't feel threatened by you claiming you could kick my ass at MP Civ II. Even if you can, it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my opinions. Thinking so would be snobbish. The fact is, that I'm no newbie and that I'm quite skilled at the games in question.

If one player gets a lot of luxuries, in MP or SP, he will have an advantage, but much of that advantage will be due to the fact that that player will (obviously) have a lot of territory. Or are you saying that if a player gets access to a lot of luxuries via trade he will have an overwhelming advantage? They aren't given away. Further, players don't know where the later resources will appear. This could conceivably mean that a weaker player could be given an advantage when rubber appears in his back yard and not a rival's.

Anyway, and this is important, I know enough about multiplayer games to know that what works out well in SP might not work against human players. MP is an entirely different game and you'll excuse me if I don't take your speculations as fact.

Further, Mr. Warrior, you'll have to excuse me if I don't care much about multiplayer whatsoever. Despite your assumptions, I have played Civ II MP and it was a bore because I had to wait for my opponent, who took much longer than the AI does in Civ III and I blew him away because I knew the exploits.

Speaking of exploits, yes, if the AI isn't programmed to use a tactic, esp. an unbalancing tactic like rushing a bunch of caravans and stacking them around so that you can pimp the AI out of a wonder, yes, it's an exploit.

The AI was given advantages in Civ II as well. It "cheated" and the game was set up in a way that it could do so. I don't see how the AI or human being handicapped in both games makes one superior.

A blow out is a blow out and is a bore no matter how it happens. Nobody pays to watch the Detroit Red Wings play a high school team.

That's all I feel like typing right now. We can discuss further, but I ask you to try to be civil.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

'Laughable. Have you actually played more than a couple of games of Civ 3 at anything above Chieftan level?'

Yeah, I've played several games on all levels regent -> deity, and I don't see what's so difficult or smart about any of it.

'I agree that there are plenty of problems with Civ 3, but the one area where it completely outshines 2 is in the strategy required to win. City location actually makes a difference in 3. Some of your cities may never grow past size one or two.'

Same in Civ2. You can't tell me that in civ2 you had a size 22 city build on mountains? Come on, you can do better than that. The strategy required to conquer a civ is minimal in Civ3 as well. Here's a basic plan that will last through the ages: Build 20-30 fast units, go attack the civ, raze his cities, build on his land. You're guaranteed minimal losses, so when he's moving his archers around the map in a seemingly random fashion, you're picking them off with your elite units and generating great leaders. Hell that took me ages to think of

'They're only good as strategic territory holders, resource colonies, etc. You actually have to plan out those of your cities that will be the huge production cities in which you can build wonders. In civ2 there was never a question as to how many cities to build or where to build them. You built as many as was possible. '

So you just placed cities anywhere in Civ2? Funnily enough, you can do this in Civ3 too! It's called despot rush. Placing cities in good locations was important in Civ2, at least if you wanted to stand a chance at MP.

'Never thought it required much strategy or planning to buy wonders.'

It requires even less when the person who starts building the wonder first is guaranteed to get it. And it's funny that the AI can't understand how to do this, which is obviously the reason why they removed it.

'Actions that you take during war and diplomacy have tangible results on your reputation with other civs in civ3.'

I never said this wasn't true, but it is irrelevant to MP.

'The strategic and luxury resources in civ3 actually give a reason to wage war and a target for your attacks. Simply gunning for an enemy capital and thereby being able to crush an entire civ was unrealistic and too easy in Civ2.'

How is it unrealistic? The idiot should have protected his capital better, that's called strategy and forward planning. In most wars in history the objective has been to capture or destroy the opponents capital city, but now there's no reason for that in Civ3.

'I was always able to build more of the wonders in civ2 than in civ3. Now I have to decide on those that are the most important. Same goes for city improvements. Not all of my cities get banks anymore. Sometimes I have to build military units to actually defend against a craftier AI.'

You don't have to build wonders at all in Civ3 to win, I never usually bother. And I defend my cities with a maximum of 2 units. All you need to do is go out and conquer the AIs.

'Most of your complaints have nothing to do with an actual comparison between the games, Civ2 and Civ3. They all seem to hinge on the fact that Civ3 doesn't have MP yet. I, for one, hope Firaxis does not waste any time on developing MP for Civ3 as it will take too much time to develop'

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, Civ3 MP is not going to work. So yes, maybe you ARE right and they shouldn't bother, because unless they siginificantly change the rules of the game, it's not going to be worth the time spent on it.

'and I doubt anyone is going to enjoy what will surely be several hour long turns in the latter stages.'

Just as I said - but this wasn't true in Civ2 though, even right at the end of the game turns would only take a few minutes.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

'Civ III has better graphics, please don't try to weasel on this point.'

I disagree. The graphics are much less clear than the civ2 ones. All you need for a TBS game is clarity, which civ3 fails to deliver.

'I have plenty of experience playing Civ and I don't feel threatened by you claiming you could kick my ass at MP Civ II. Even if you can, it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my opinions. Thinking so would be snobbish. The fact is, that I'm no newbie and that I'm quite skilled at the games in question.'

I never said it invalidated your opinions. I was merely pointing out that anyone who doesn't have significant experience in MP is a newbie.

'If one player gets a lot of luxuries, in MP or SP, he will have an advantage, but much of that advantage will be due to the fact that that player will (obviously) have a lot of territory. Or are you saying that if a player gets access to a lot of luxuries via trade he will have an overwhelming advantage? They aren't given away. Further, players don't know where the later resources will appear. This could conceivably mean that a weaker player could be given an advantage when rubber appears in his back yard and not a rival's.'

Players can by chance be located in an area high in luxuries/strategic resources. I've seen islands with 15 dye on them. It takes no intelligence or stategy to end up on top of a lot of resources by chance. Resources tend to occur in clusters, remember. And of course they aren't given away, they won't be traded at all. What would you want in exchange for your iron monopoly? Nothing could pay for it. I'd be suprised if any games lasted as long as it takes to get rubber, too. The player with resources will go build knights/cavalry and go kill everyone else.

'Anyway, and this is important, I know enough about multiplayer games to know that what works out well in SP might not work against human players. MP is an entirely different game and you'll excuse me if I don't take your speculations as fact.

Further, Mr. Warrior, you'll have to excuse me if I don't care much about multiplayer whatsoever. Despite your assumptions, I have played Civ II MP and it was a bore because I had to wait for my opponent, who took much longer than the AI does in Civ III and I blew him away because I knew the exploits.'

I'm willing to wait for an intelligent opponent. Apparently though, you don't know what would work in MP, if you think that Civ3 in it's current form would be playable.

'Speaking of exploits, yes, if the AI isn't programmed to use a tactic, esp. an unbalancing tactic like rushing a bunch of caravans and stacking them around so that you can pimp the AI out of a wonder, yes, it's an exploit.'

WHY is it an exploit? That makes no sense whatsoever. If I choose to build horsemen in the early game, and my opponent doesn't know that they are effective units, then that is an exploit? If I was playing chess, and I knew all the rules but my opponent thought queens could only move 2 squares, then my correct play is an exploit? Just because a player is too stupid to use a rule doesn't mean it is an exploit.

'The AI was given advantages in Civ II as well. It "cheated" and the game was set up in a way that it could do so. I don't see how the AI or human being handicapped in both games makes one superior.'

What I said was that the rules have been designed around the AIs limitations, not playability, creativity, or anything else. Of course the AI cheated in Civ2, but the game rules were not designed around what the AI could do.

'A blow out is a blow out and is a bore no matter how it happens. Nobody pays to watch the Detroit Red Wings play a high school team.'

Which means experienced players should be severely handicapped so that a guy who has had the game for a week can play as well as someone who has been playing for two years? Where's the fun in becoming good at the game there? Where's the long term challenge? You know, it is fun sucking at a game, then gradually building up to becoming one of the best players. It's a challenge, one which has been removed from Civ3, which is basically going to go completely down to the luck of the draw.

 

[tpasmall]

Civ2 is way better than civ3 for many reasons.

Customization- any and everything is easily customizable.
Air units, naval units, and siege units all can finish off land enemies.
Hacks- Civ2 has a hack that allows multiple players to play on the same computer
Scenarios- Scenarios are actually scenarios in civ2, not maps like in civ3

The only 2 advantages of civ3 are the graphics (if you dont think this your just a plain idiot) and the changes to diplomacy (which i also love)

Im sure hacks will eventually come out for civ3, but im still waiting, once that happens, the games will be about even in my eyes.

 

[Ironikinit]

Graphics.

You can disagree all you want, but my eyes tell me that Civ III has better graphics. I'm not going to count pixels or anything, and you have a right to your opinion, even if my eyes tell me otherwise. You'll excuse me, however, if I trust my own eyes.

Newbies.

I must disagree. The games are meant to be played, first and foremost, SP. Recall that Civ I had no multiplayer (counting CivNet as a seperate game as it wasn't really an expansion) and that Civ II didn't until an expansion. First and foremost, the games are meant for SP. When Civ III was advertised with a planned MP feature, some people expressed surprise given Sid's history of releasing one player games.

Even if MP was a bigger part of the Civ universe, calling someone who was completely unfamiliar with the MP aspect a newbie would be a mistake if they have experience with SP. It would be like calling a sports analyst unqualified unless they played every position in every sport.

Resources.

15 dye... um, what good is that? One dye is plenty for one civ, that's all they need. Now, you can sell dye, but 14 dye? Most of my games I don't have 14 opponents, so a surplus that big doesn't do any good. Also, you seem to not value having allies in the game. Trading strategic resources makes AI players friendly, and would no doubt help the attitude of a human rival. Anyway, if I was playing MP Civ III, I'd want to play teams to help lower the chance of a blowout and to make it more fun.

Civ III's suitability for MP.

Again, I tell you that I cannot predict how Civ III will work out in MP. Further, I doubt your ability to do so. All I know is that many people have expressed a keen interest in playing it MP. You earlier stated that Civ II isn't particularly suited to MP, which didn't prevent you from playing it. Further, I know that games such as Europa Universalis, which don't strike me as well suited to MP, are played that way anyway.

Exploits.

Again I say that yes, anything that gives the human player an unfair advantage over the AI is an exploit. The real definition of an exploit, in my mind, is using a rule in a way that the designer didn't foresee to get an unwarrented advantage. I don't know the mind of the designer in questions of fundamentalism, caravan rush, etc. in Civ II, but I do know that they amounted to the same thing as an according to Hoyle exploit. That is: an unfair and cheap advantage over the AI. If all you face is human opponents who don't happen to know of the exploit and you don't tell them, then it's still cheap.

Civ II being designed to help the AI.

Um, you say that Civ II wasn't designed with the AI's ability in mind. I say that every game that has an AI had better be designed with the the AI's limitations in mind or it won't be much of a game. I'm not sure what your trying to say here because the face value of your statement is too oblivious to be the real meaning.

Experienced players handicapped.

Yes. Experienced players should be handicapped when facing less experienced ones. You may personally enjoy one-sided games (I assume only when you're winning, though), but I do not, even when I'm the winner. Oooo, I just nuked a stone age village. Go me.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

'You can disagree all you want, but my eyes tell me that Civ III has better graphics. I'm not going to count pixels or anything, and you have a right to your opinion, even if my eyes tell me otherwise. You'll excuse me, however, if I trust my own eyes.'

Your choice, I'm not going to argue over such an irrelevant point.

'I must disagree. The games are meant to be played, first and foremost, SP. Recall that Civ I had no multiplayer (counting CivNet as a seperate game as it wasn't really an expansion) and that Civ II didn't until an expansion. First and foremost, the games are meant for SP. When Civ III was advertised with a planned MP feature, some people expressed surprise given Sid's history of releasing one player games.

Even if MP was a bigger part of the Civ universe, calling someone who was completely unfamiliar with the MP aspect a newbie would be a mistake if they have experience with SP. It would be like calling a sports analyst unqualified unless they played every position in every sport.'

True, but beating an AI takes little skill. Playing a human is much more difficult and rewarding, thus compared to an experienced MP player, even a very good SP player is a newbie, as the skill level is different. Believe me, I've seen it before plenty of times. Guy comes on, says he's great, goes on to say he's been playing the AI for 5 years, gets his ass kicked in his first game. And his second, etc. MP is a whole different game.

'15 dye... um, what good is that? One dye is plenty for one civ, that's all they need. Now, you can sell dye, but 14 dye? Most of my games I don't have 14 opponents, so a surplus that big doesn't do any good. Also, you seem to not value having allies in the game. Trading strategic resources makes AI players friendly, and would no doubt help the attitude of a human rival. Anyway, if I was playing MP Civ III, I'd want to play teams to help lower the chance of a blowout and to make it more fun.'

There was no dye anywhere else on the map. I had a dye monopoly simply because of where I'd started. That's the point - if all the resources on the map occur in a cluster, then even though a lot of them are useless to you, it ensures you get control of them and noone else does. And believe me, resources tend to cluster. Imagine if that was all the Iron or Saltpetre or Oil on the map. I'd have a monopoly in a powerful unit type for a whole age in the game. Being able to build more powerful units than anyone else would mean I could prevent anyone from getting control of these resources, and wage a major war of conquest too, all simply because of where I started. Why bother with allies? As long as you can keep peace on all but a couple fronts, then you are going to win eventually. Predict in advance where the next resources are going to come from and conquer those areas, and having control of the resources means you can cut off your allies at will when they become useless to you, and go conquer them.

'Again, I tell you that I cannot predict how Civ III will work out in MP. Further, I doubt your ability to do so. All I know is that many people have expressed a keen interest in playing it MP. You earlier stated that Civ II isn't particularly suited to MP, which didn't prevent you from playing it. Further, I know that games such as Europa Universalis, which don't strike me as well suited to MP, are played that way anyway.'

If there is anyone who is able to predict how well Civ3 will do in MP, it is me or someone like me. I've played 100s of MP games, I've seen games fail, and I've noted why. I have played a fair bit of Civ3 too, and right from the start I was worried about it. A LOT of people said they were keen to play MP Civ2 as well, but a lot less played it more than a few times. A LOT of people said they were keen to play tribes too, but only a few games ever materialised. It's all well and good saying they are keen, but wanting and having are too very different things, and having is often not as good as wanting. Believe me, the enthusiam will very rapidly wear off when people are faced with games that take 100 hours or more to play. By the way, I said Civ2 wasn't particularly well suited to MP, but Civ3 just inflates all the bad points I noticed in Civ2 MP.

'Again I say that yes, anything that gives the human player an unfair advantage over the AI is an exploit. The real definition of an exploit, in my mind, is using a rule in a way that the designer didn't foresee to get an unwarrented advantage. I don't know the mind of the designer in questions of fundamentalism, caravan rush, etc. in Civ II, but I do know that they amounted to the same thing as an according to Hoyle exploit. That is: an unfair and cheap advantage over the AI. If all you face is human opponents who don't happen to know of the exploit and you don't tell them, then it's still cheap.'

I still disagree. It's up to the players to learn the rules and nuances of the game, players who do not understand or know them as well are simply less experienced than others, they are not being exploited. They will learn over time, which is part of the enjoyment of playing.

'Um, you say that Civ II wasn't designed with the AI's ability in mind. I say that every game that has an AI had better be designed with the the AI's limitations in mind or it won't be much of a game. I'm not sure what your trying to say here because the face value of your statement is too oblivious to be the real meaning.'

I never said it wasn't designed with the AIs ability in mind. I said that it wasn't designed solely with the AIs ability in mind. It was also designed to offer many different paths for the player to go down during the game. That's what I want to see - I want to have 10 different options at one point of the game, all of which seem about as useful or benificial as the others. I want to make more decisions during the game, that is what a strategy game is all about. The way Civ3 is at the moment, the players choices are limited, as I described. Just because an AI cannot do one thing, doesn't mean that option should be taken away from the human player, if it would enrich their gaming experience.

'Yes. Experienced players should be handicapped when facing less experienced ones. You may personally enjoy one-sided games (I assume only when you're winning, though), but I do not, even when I'm the winner. Oooo, I just nuked a stone age village. Go me.'

Perhaps optional handicaps, but the handicaps should not be built into the game rules itself. I think a player should be rewarded by greater skill in the game if they've been playing for 2 years. Civ2 survived well due to competitive play, but it won't exist if a player who has had the game a week can regularly beat a more experienced player. I enjoy losing games by the way, because it's a rare treat. I think I've won like 25 games in a row now. No fun when you know the results. But I can safely say the reason I won them was because of MY skill, and not due to where I'd started every game, and that at least is satisfying.