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

[Kefka]

Originally posted by 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

1.Oh right those things that slowed down the computer and that I shut off all the time

2.I don't change the units and stuff thats not my job I play the game not change the game :crazyeyes

3.I can do that with Civ3 but ya know all this time I thought I was having a GOOD time with CIV3 but apparently not In case you can't tell I was being sarcastic!

 

[OneInTen]

There's a bit of a logical fallacy being argued here by IronicWarrior. That is because of his claimed skill in MP civ 2, he is the best to judge which game is best.

Now, I dare say I could beat most Americans on this board at the game of cricket (it certainly helps that cricket isn't generally played in America ). That fact alone does not mean that I get to decide that cricket is a better game than baseball though!

I have to say that I think judging a game that is played 99%+ of the time in single player maode based on it's playability or lack thereof in multiplayer mode is foolish. I appreciate that you're a MP fan IronicWarrior, but I don't think most people play multiplayer much or at all, therefore your bias is much different to the average civ player, putting you in a poor position to fairly evaluate the games.

Additionally, the opinions of someone who struggles to defeaut the game at the easiest level is just as valid as the best player in the world. They'll have different insights into the game than someone who breezes through it, and so can offer something new to the debate.

After all, there's no requirement you be a masterful player to play the game. A proper comparison of the two games should compare how enjoyable the games are for people of all levels of experience and skill.

Although this poll is far from scientific, it seems to suggest that across the spread of civfanatics, 72% prefer civ 3. I couldn't give a rats if the 28% who prefer civ 2 are the most experienced, greatest civ players on Earth, it seems to me that people on the whole prefer civ 3.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

Yes, but it's a civ3 forum, which is why the result is biased. If it was placed in a civ2 forum you wouldn't expect civ3 to win. People who are disappointed with civ3 are more likely to just leave the forum, not go posting on every poll. It's a minority who stay around here in the hope that the game will be improved, or in the frustration that it was nothing like how it should have been.

Also, I never said that because I am good at the game that I am best to judge it. What I have been saying all along is that civ3 MP is not going to work as well as civ2 MP, which I believe not because of my skill, but because I've seen why games fail plenty of times before. I know how things are, people do get keen about multiplay civ, but when it actually comes out, it's a disappointment. Some don't like the wait in between turns (worse in civ3 than civ2), some don't like the unfair start positions (worse in civ3 again), some don't like the lack of diplomacy (unsure weather it's better or not in civ3, civ2 mp was about as flexible but a lot of features were never used), others are disappointed by how few games are finished and how difficult it is to organise a game, etc. So basically it comes down to the fact that civ2 had problems with multiplay that caused people not to play it in some cases, and in civ3 these problems are worse generally, I can't really think of anything that was improved. Therefore it's logical to assume that civ3 will not do as well as civ2 did in multiplay, even if the community is initially bigger due to the increased amount of internet access nowadays. In other words a smaller percentage of people will play it, for a smaller amount of time.

 

[Ironikinit]

Graphics in a computer game, even a strategy game, are not irrelevent. BTW, you're unusual even among Civ III haters, who hate to admit that there's anything good about the game. Most of them can at least admit that the graphics are better than Civ II. (As an example, see tpasmall's post.)

You underestimate the difficulty of beating the AI, IMO. It might be extremely easy for you, but judging from the posts I read (even from Civ III haters who often register frustration at the way the game "cheats" just cos they got beat), whaling on the AI in Civ III is no easy matter. What's your highest score and what were the settings?

"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."

This serves as an example of the difficulty of predicting how MP will go, even for experienced gamers. Further, you admit that very few people play Civ II MP which means to me that the question of MP for Civ III is moot. SP is where it's at. While MP might be the whole show for you, by your own admission you're in a vanishingly small minority that can be safely ignored. Well, from my point of view, anyway. The game makers might be able to squeeze out a few more sales by including MP, but I don't want to have to pay extra for it.

A dye monopoly does a player little good unless he's willing to sell the excess. Most civs will have a monopoly on a luxury or two after the weaklings and unlucky have been eliminated. As you observed, luxuries tend to be clustered, which makes trade necessary. I feel odd having to explain this as it's such a basic point. Also, strategic resources tend not to be clustered, although they may be rare and are terrain specific. Thus a civ could have a complete monopoly on a strategic resource, say, oil, if for example's sake it controlled all the desert and tundra areas. I've yet to see this in game. Wars are fought over resources, but again, I've never seen one civ control all the strategic resources by luck. I can imagine a situation where one could have a monopoly on all strategic resources, but the player would have to be on too easy a difficulty level or otherwise stacked the deck and have the domination and most likely the cultural victory conditions turned off.

You ask why a player would bother with allies, and I'm forced to wonder how much you've played Civ III. While allies were unimportant in Civ II, in Civ III a player who goes to war without regard for allies is likely to end up fighting a multiple front war with an inevitable result, unless his position is completely dominant. While a dominant position is possible in the late or even mid game, it certainly isn't usual in the early game if the player is on a suitable difficulty level and not relying on exploits.

"I said that it wasn't designed solely with the AIs ability in mind."

To this I say: Civ III obviously wasn't designed solely with the AI's ability in mind or I wouldn't enjoy it. At least some of it was designed with my abilities in mind.

You obviously aren't in it for the challenge if you've won 25 in a row, BTW.

Exploits are fine if all players are aware of them. Caravan rushing isn't available to the AI in Civ II. If you're not facing the AI, it's not an exploit, per se. I fail to see how having to plan your wonders because you're denied the ability to rush them is a shortcoming. It's a tougher rule and more of a challenge.

I don't see your reasoning in how starting position rules all in Civ III. I've had unpromising starts work out and good ones go sour. Anyway, in MP, players could make mirror image maps so that they have identical starts if it's such a big deal. IMO the more experienced should be a sport and take an inferior starting position.

 

[OneInTen]

As for strategic resources being controlled by one player:

In the unlikely event that a single player controls all the iron early in the game, I don't think they're assured a win.

On a standard map, I can't see how it could happen, since you just can't grab enough land quickly enough to get every iron, since it's usually spread across the map. But lets say one player does, and thinks they can crush the enemy.

I think they've got another thing coming, since if, as you say, they wont trade iron, then the other 7 players aren't going to sit there and be wiped out! They'll use human strategies too, and most likely join up to beat the greedy pig down. Now, swordsmen might be all well and good, and immortals are even better, but they're not THAT good. Warriors are cheaper, and if you have 7 players worth of warriors up against your single civ's worth of swordsmen, you're in for a world of hurt.

So I can't see how hoarding is going to help you - being the strongest just makes you a target if the other players all see you as a threat.

I guess we shall see, all in good time.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

Yes, but in a 3-4 player game, which is more likely in MP (easier to organise times everyone can play, turns are reasonable, etc. Then the player has a much greater advantage. If one or two civs are on a different continent they will have problems organising such an attack. In a bigger game with say, 7 players, it could happen regionally - one player on a continent gets all the iron, goes conquering, dominates their continent, dominates the game from then on.

 

[Zachriel]

A lot of people may have troubles with resources because they didn't expand rapidly enough in the beginning, or didn't bother to build a town in the desert.

 

[Ironikinit]

Iron just isn't that rare. If only 4 people are playing, they're going to have plenty of room, even on a small map. The threat of a runaway MP game in Civ III is no worse than the obvious reality of runaway games by exploit masters in Civ II.

Anyway, this is all speculation, and pretty weak speculation based on poor observation in some quarters. Why not wait and see?

 

[IronicWarrior19]

Perhaps not as much iron as saltpetre, oil, rubber, etc. The value of the land you do get depends all on luck.

Runaway games in civ2 are for two reasons, either the player got a great start, or they're good. I think being good justifies getting a large lead in a game. Getting a great start (or all the resources by chance) doesn't really justify getting a large lead, yet that is what it's going to come down to in Civ3 as it's harder to pull back from behind.

 

[ManinBlack]

I for one am sick and tired of picking the Romans and bieng placed next to a mountain range with 0 iron. I then spend 2 hours looking for it only to find someone else has the only supply on a huge island. This pisses {sorry} me off so much I just want to punch the computer.
the map editor in Civ3 is a joke: No zoom function = **** how are you supposed to see or even make the map? Cheats are needed often to create scenarios
Civ2 rocks. After 5 years playing it I have not got tired of it once {how i wish I could say the same for Deus Ex and Shogun}, Civ3 i got fed up with in 3 weeks without finishing it once.
My $0.02

 

[thoxic]

I've seen finally boths opinions:the "for" and the "against" civ3.
To those who think evolution is improvement I'll disappoint them
Civ3 is not what hardcore civers intend to.
In fact,all of the civ players I met (multiplayers or not) were
seeking for an final retail and improvement of Civ II with
longer lifetime and discoveries,untits terrain and techs.
Scenarios are fun,but a two-months game has no equivalent
I ,and I am not alone to think that,was looking for more complexity,more things to trade more civs to conquer more
diplomacy or even a more efficient AI.
Civ3 has simplified trade and reduced Wonders powers and
spies activities:the things which had not to be changed!!!
Graphics are useless(better or not)
The most stupid evolution I met is ressource,how can a civilization have monopoly before the modern area?
Is a kind of situation happened along history? NO !!!!!!!!
At last but not least by creating spec units which was at once a marvellous idea(it's a lack in civ2) Sid should have thought to create specials techs as spec city improvments as well as specific tech trees(For example the Aztecs can not discover technology of modern era,thy just can trade or purchase them)
At least the game will have a more historically interest and also
will satisfy the most civ-fundamentalist of us.

 

[ferenginar]

Civ III is essentially the same game as Civ II, simply the next development step, it is also a completely different game and should be considered as such.

As to which is best, the answer is obvious, it's whichever one I happen to be playing at the time.

One other point, more detailed graphics don't necessarily equal better graphics, I'm not keen on the movement at present as it slow the game down too much on my old machine PII400. Other than movement the units are much better, but I definately prefer the terrain from Civ II, atleast the mountains looked like mountains. No real complaints though, I love them both.

ferenginar

 

[King Buzzo]

I just wanted to say that both games are ****ing great.
I mean civ2 has some cool things and some annoying things and it's the same with civ3 , but they are both exellent games.
I would give each of them a score of 9.5 out of 10.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by thoxic
The most stupid evolution I met is ressource,how can a civilization have monopoly before the modern area?

Many resources were crucial and in limited supply in ancient times. Even salt was a valuable resource! There was a brisk trade of gold for salt for centuries.

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

I prefer Civ3 and I already said it ... I just don't figure out why u guys are arguing over pointless thing... You guys are taking it too seriously ... I mean, some people like CIV2 over CIV3... well, play Civ2 !!! People who prefer Civ3 will play Civ3 !!... I don't like MP and I don't bother but the way you guys are talking, it is like I am a complete imbecile if I don't like it .... HELL !! It is just a freakin game !! What the point to try to tell someone that he is stupid cuz he don't like the same game as you? Me I like cool graphics and Civ3 have it ... and YES I prefer cool looking strat game.... Why some people make me feel like a complete idiot cuz I'm not a "real" strat game fan?!? I like it that way damnit!! HEY, it's my taste, mind you'r own! What the point over this "my opinion is better cuz I can kick ur ass in MY favorite game!!!" Damn, how old are you? I even read in a tread someone saying that people who like civ3 over civ2 were culturally inferior.... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Great, welcome to kindergarden.... And I bet you are older than me...

This message was adress to nobody in particular, it was just that my boss was pissing me off and I've read your post afterthat...needed to liberate some stress

Happy Civing whoerever version is it !

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by LaZZyCaKe
I prefer Civ3 and I already said it ... I just don't figure out why u guys are arguing over pointless thing... You guys are taking it too seriously ... I mean, some people like CIV2 over CIV3... well, play Civ2 !!! People who prefer Civ3 will play Civ3 !!... I don't like MP and I don't bother but the way you guys are talking, it is like I am a complete imbecile if I don't like it .... HELL !! It is just a freakin game !! What the point to try to tell someone that he is stupid cuz he don't like the same game as you? Me I like cool graphics and Civ3 have it ... and YES I prefer cool looking strat game.... Why some people make me feel like a complete idiot cuz I'm not a "real" strat game fan?!? I like it that way damnit!! HEY, it's my taste, mind you'r own! What the point over this "my opinion is better cuz I can kick ur ass in MY favorite game!!!" Damn, how old are you? I even read in a tread someone saying that people who like civ3 over civ2 were culturally inferior.... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Great, welcome to kindergarden.... And I bet you are older than me...

This message was adress to nobody in particular, it was just that my boss was pissing me off and I've read your post afterthat...needed to liberate some stress

Happy Civing whoerever version is it !

WE ARE AGUING OVER THE TWO JUST BECAUSE WE CAN!
personally It reminds me of all those pointless arguments when I was a kid!
superman CAN outrun the flash!

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Why are we arguing??!!!!!!!!!!

See that is just the kind of pussy thing an SP player says: because you have never engaged in the heat and mosh and fury of real civ-rage, against a human opponent.
The AI is a freakin pansy and at this level of development AI is nowhere near human cunning and skill...
Ironic Warrior is right, I've seen it time and time again...some guy comes in to one of the hosting rooms to play multi and he thinks he is a hotshot cause he beat the AI at diety, and he gets his lunch and his balls served to him on a platter, by a rookie MP player.

Guyz I don't despise your continual fascination with this useless extension of a great game (the last I saw my LE Civ3 tin btw, it was being worn as a hat by some bum on the Washington DC Mall trying to reenact the Battle of 1812!) but PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ do yourself a favor and experience multiplayer civ...u will be scathed forever and we will no longer consider you as rookies, newbies, virgins, britneys...etc

we love u guyz, we really do
but tuff love is required here
u gotta be cruel to be kind
so quit the tango with the bitstream and sign up at the msn gaming zone for a free ass whoopin

ed

 

[BurntHostage]

Never had to be a beta tester on CivII!

Who are they, Microsoft??

 

[EdmundSpenser]

we love u really

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Hell I tried that Ed,I came by last summer on MSN.Was sick of CS,
well it wouldn´t let me join since I "only" had the usual Civ2.
I never did like Civ2,was rather dissapointed in fact,I did like some things,making my own units for instance but the AI was a pain and I don´t mean in the sense of intelligence but more in the sense of allying against one when too powerful.The trade system seemed pretty silly too,resources had no value at all,just send them somewhere,if posse to a far away civ with lots of pop.
Thought I could finally get to likes with the game by MP,but like I said it wouldn´t let me.Another thing why I never got hooked on it is prolly that I fell (so to say) for Colonization and missed a lot of improvements fr it in Civ2.Also prefered spending my time back then playing MOO2,was so much more interesting and fresh
One thing I give a great deal for really worked in MOO2,the diplomatic system.

After not being able to play Civ2 MP,I signed in for some Close Combat,had huge campaigns in mind,liked part 2 better than 3 (Russian Assault) but part 3 would let one play through the entire war in SP might aswell in MP too,at least so I thought,was dissapointed to find the ppl there just playing customized maps, which would last maybe an hour at the most,asked around if anyone considered playing a campaign and all the replys I got said "yeah ask SS so and so,think he played a campaign once",
saying that ppl playing more than just one map were so rare that they had become a legend,think he was called Piper,now why should this pro spend hours in a campaign playing against a n00b like me?!
It really is hard to find ppl who are willing to go to full lengths,and play a game for more than a few hours,makes me wary.Maybe that is different with peeps in Civ though,who are used to playing several hours at a time,this on the other hand makes me hopeful.