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

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Genghis Janeway
What is wrong with you people!!!! civ2! Gimme a break! Its like this Civ3 is to gold as Civ2 is to cornfeed. I admit Civ2 was a good game in its time in 1995-2000. But Civ3 in this age of development is far superior. Also don't dis civ3 yet. The Play the World Expansion will be sure to fix what we miss from civ2. But, Civ2 was basically a 3d version of civ1.

Too bad Civ 3 wasn't a better version of Civ 2 - it would have been more fun, more realistic, and at least have given us scenarios and Cheat Mode. Instead we got a disappointing AI that seems only weeks in development beyond Civ 2 instead of five years.

I'll bet a lot of the Civ 3 fans never played Civ 2. I am also amazed still that in this poll a game over five years older (a generation in computer terms) than Civ 3 has 30% of the vote on a forum where most critics of Civ 3 have long ago left the forum to play CTP2 or EU 2.

 

[MuddyOne]

You would get a similar breakdown if doing a poll at many sites that cover sequels. People expect different things from sequels. Post a similar poll on a Fallout 2 site, and it is quite possible that Fallout would win, even though Fallout 2 is mechanically a much better game. The only thing they would agree upon is that the series is better than any other CRPG. Fallout is what? 8 years old.

I voted for Civ3. I don't play TBS for MP so that doesn't concern me. RTS is so much better for MP. Scenario capability is in the works, perhaps this month.

 

[roadwarrior]

Fallout is only like 4 or 5 years old, but that's completely off topic

I can't vote for Civ2 because of the new advances in Civ3 (not techs just general cool stuff), but Civ2 had scenarios. It's too hard to choose

I hate sitting on the fence, but I just can't vote now. When PTW comes out we shall see...

 

[starlifter]

Yeah yeah. Civ 2. Until Civ 2, Ultimate Edition comes out .

 

[SirJava]

Im sorry but this is coming from a true civII fan...

CIV III Hands down!

Graphics, diplomacy, and AI Inteligence for starters

Luxuries are a godsent because thay force trade and ears
Resources are the same. I cant remember how many times I have had to start a war for iron with a disadvantage.

You should really give civ III a good go. The new rules enforce diplomacy and good games. You will always have to deal with another civ in civIII to get a luxuries hence friendships are everything and so is shrewd diplomacy.

Civ III is much more realistic and none of thoes stupid advisors stopping the war!!!

 

[Juize]

There's nothing funnier than finishing an Deity game against AI by crushing
win because you have studied it's weak spots, and you've skrewed it through the game.
Cheating AI is not some cheesy weak spot of a game - it's an form of art.
That's why Civ 2 is nice.


Civ 3 is still better (altough it's tech tree is from arse).

 

[Zouave]

But Civ 2 was more fun, even without the extra benefits of scenrio building, meaningful espionage, and cheat mode. Plus trade wasn't abstract - you had to actually bring a caravan or frieght to another civ's port, and risk being intercepted by an enemy cruiser. And it was so good when you caught an enemy transport loaded with frieght and sunk it!

 

[WarlordMatt]

I voted Civ III in this poll a long time ago, but there still are some benefits Civ II has over Civ III, such as:
You don't rush past the BC time like you do in Civ III so you have lots of time to build up your civ before it hits AD
You can name your own custom civilization (love that)

 

[Sullla]

Originally posted by WarlordMatt
You can name your own custom civilization (love that)

You can do this in Civ3 too, just by clicking on the text box on the set-up screen.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Sulla posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WarlordMatt
You can name your own custom civilization (love that)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You can do this in Civ3 too, just by clicking on the text box on the set-up screen.

Great. I can't wait to be the Good Guys again.

And now, the top 10 things I miss about Civ2:
10. "We invite you to gape in awe as the Russians demonstrate the secret of writing. Absolutely no scribes will be allowed."
9. That big cash and science bonus from delivering a caravan across the world.
8. "Hey fellow citizen, did you notice that people are dying of starvation all over our city?" "Yeah, isn't it great?" In unison: "We love the king!"
7. Oh wait, we have #8 in Civ3 too.
6. Giving military units to a weak civ to keep a strong one from rolling over them too fast.
5. Some units could be bribed.
4. "Hey Joe, our hometown has been captured by the enemy! Let's give them hell until every last one of them are dead!! Or, we could throw down our arms and quietly disappear. Yeah, now that I think of it, that seems like a much better idea."
3. Scenarios.
2. Multiplayer.
1. Once, in Civ2, I attacked a warrior with a tank, and a funny thing happened: the tank won!

 

[Japher]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY loved CIV2... So, when CIV3 came out of course I rushed out to buy it, and 7mos. later I finally did, and hate the fact that I did..


I can't stop playing it!!! help...


CIV2 was awesome in that I was good at it, though it took 4mos. to get that way. I loved the stacking feature as well as being able to name your CIV and LEADER... (CIV: CIV, LEADER: LEADER, TOWNS: TOWN1, TOWN 2, etc., I have such a big imagination).

Apart from those two difference I love CIV3 just as much as CIV2. What I am really happy about though is that they made it a new game. How in the world could they do that? To me it is not like buying SIM CITY 2,000,000 and have it be the same as SIM CITY beta in that it is the same old dirty rag ran through some Oxy-Clean. CIV3 offers new challenges and new interfaces, that while similar have a completely different impact on the game.

Man was I wrong when I pulled CIV3 out and though, "huh, 5 hours and I will be bored with again having beatin the hardest level without even trying. Why shouldn't I, CIV2 I was a pro at?"

I am seriously beating myself offer the head for that thought, and for ever picking up the only game that could ever be more addicting than CIV2.

My wife hates me. Thanks Firaxis!!!

 

[Zouave]

I think the reason a lot of people who played Civ 2 and loved it still play Civ 3 with its many flaws, is that we know the concepts and the system in general, along with strategy ideas.

I'm sure that once someone gets familiar with the different system for such as Europa Universalis 2 they will find that addictive; that game has legions of fans worldwide and its own busy forums.

 

[MuddyOne]

Zouave, how turn based can you make it? It sounds interesting, but I am always very hestitant in buying an RTS. I don't enjoy them. With the lesser span of years that it covers, it should be able to maintain more realistic/historical values without impacting gameplay adversely. Not a big point to me, but it is one of your big points.

 

[Anglophile]

I liked Civ1 more than Civ2 but that was mostly because I could easily beat Civ2 using exactly the same techniques I had learned (some very slowly) with Civ1. I never played MP - and never will because I like really big maps/empires and that is not tenable in MP so that factor doesn't come into play for me. The things I prefer about Civ3
- 'Settler diarrhea' - the single most important factor in making Civ3 much tougher than it's predecessors.
- the resource system; brings a much higher level of strategy into play.
- better AI, not that much better but certainly more aggressive and therefore more challenging.
- no killer Wonders
- the editor, which is going to keep getting better
- culture flipping (I just put that in to annoy Zouave, my style results in more flipping to than away but am unconvinced that it adds a lot to the game).
- not having to use 80% of my very limited unit allotment for settlers/engineers/caravans.

All-in-all Civ3 is my favourite (in that Civ1 may be my favourite game of all time and I would never go back and play it again with Civ3 available).

 

[Ereinion]

Hi! I'm new here, but I've been playing civ for 10 years or so. I wanted to share my thoughts and personnal experience on this difficult subject so I registered.
Well out of the three, the one I played most was civ 1 by a large margin; but that's only because I had much more time at that time since I was younger (remember spending several following days at once playing a game...)
When civ 2 came out, I thought it was a much better (and it better was, since it came out later), except for a few things like the absence of summary at the end of the game

But many things were still wrong in civ2, like the way others civs could just walk through your empire since there was no borders
That's one of the reason I'm very happy with civ3, and I think it is the best out of the three. But the main reason why I think civ3 is better is because, unlike most people here apparently, I like to be civilized when I play. Of course, I go to war from times to times (especially to defend myself, or to eliminate a threat), but the less the better - I don't want my people to be killed just because I'm some insane leader whose only goal is to conquer the world; better spend my production power on city improvements which will benefit the citizens. And if I can afford to raise luxury (even if it is not necessary), then why not ? It makes people happy !

So, even in civ2, I put a great emphasis on "cultural" development; unfortunately, in civ2, unlike civ3, you don't get much benefit from it. Of course, even in civ3, this is not a very competitive way of playing, but it works much better anyway than in civ2; that's probably the reason I'm not that strong a player, eventhough I played the games for so long (usually played on king in civ2 - deity for a very big challenge and when I was in a fighting spirit - and regent in civ3). Btw, I played MP sometimes with friends, who were as civilized as I was, so it was fun. But the way some people here described MP, I would probably not like playing civ on internet, because it seems most people play it like a wargame and not a game of "civilization". Personnally, I find the idea of a country taking over the world absurd (and this can happen in BOTH civ2 and civ3 when there are "good" human players) so I try to avoid this to happen...

Well, it seems everyone has a different way to enjoy the game. Anyway, I vote for civ3.

 

[Genghis Janeway]

What is Settler Diherrea?

 

[Anglophile]

Settler diarrhea isn't my term, probably Zouave's - certainly he uses it. It is the description of how the AI builds many settlers and pours them out to expand as fast as possible. I think that it also extends to the tendency for the AI to try to sneak settlers over borders or through gaps in borders not yet closed through cultural expansion. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses in previous versions was the unaggressive expansion, especially after the early game push, of the AI. Many would disagree with that view. Hope that helps.

 

[Koronin]

I'll say it like this: At the time, in 1995, Civ 2 was hands down my favorite game. I like Civ 3 better than civ 2, but not as much in relation to some of the games out now.

Without nitpicking 101 chicken **** details, I'll just say, Civ 2 was too easy to beat.

 

[Chris_b_89]

Gotta go with Civ 3, many improvements. I especially like the way that territory is used, and the fact that your entire army is now supported by your treasury instead of by home city shields, I hated that.

 

[Punkymonkey]

The only thing civ 2 has over civ 3 is that it was much easier to play. that doesn't make it the better game though. Civ 3 is way way better than civ 2 and when PTW comes out there will be no comparison! Civ 2 will be blown out of the water!