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

[IronicWarrior19]

'This is hardly unbalancing. Immortals are tough, but they are not invincible.'

Believe me it is. It only takes a small advantage for a human player to turn it into a massive lead (a good early conquest).

'I'd just like to point out that the game is supposed to be hard as hell on deity. Plus, you are wrong that 10-15 archers can be wiped out in a size one culture flip. Since the last patch, that city would not flip because of the overwhelming size of the garrison.'

They can, actually, even post patch. I was using an example from one of my own games. I lost my whole army almost, believing that flipping was impossible with such a garrison.

 

[d3dash]

IronicWarrior19, you obviously are living in your own little world. What color is the sky there I wonder?

"Civ2 had multiplayer. Therefore civ2 was multiplayer, so it is fair to compare civ2 (which had multiplayer) to civ3."
- Ummm......Ya, so now we are lumping all versions of Civ2 together as plain old Civ2???? Well, then in that case, I loved the ability in Call to Power to build underwater cities and link continents with rails.

"UU just imbalance the game. They won't be used much in MP (imagine how well a Persian player with iron would do - just from pure luck). "
- I'm sorry, did I ask you if they would be used in MP???? Did I studder on my point saying that I don't give a flying F*** what a Civ3 MP game would be like??? The UU gives a great deal of Diversity to the game. And to quote one of you favorite little comebacks about stratigic Resorces "If one player gets all of the iron then he is not going to trade it and just conquer." Well, did you forget about the War Elephant that doesn't need iron???

so, grow up alil bit, stop judging Civ3 on the fact that it doesn't have MP, and if you think it is that important get off your pitty pot and go play Chess.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by IronicWarrior19
'This is hardly unbalancing. Immortals are tough, but they are not invincible.'

Believe me it is. It only takes a small advantage for a human player to turn it into a massive lead (a good early conquest).

One strategy is to take out the Persians before they get mean.

 

[BadDay]

Anybody notice how the world just got smaller, ridiculously smaller. What happened to transform terrain? Did MP buy the patents or something?
What about pollution and corruption, I mean how much can a Koala Bear?
Civ 3 is a completely new game with very little in common with it's predecessors.

 

[Neo Guderian]

The evolution of civ2 began very humbly. I remember my first night of playing and was amazed by it. It took me along time before I fully understood the game and was able to beat it everytime on diety.... but the point is, Civ2 evolved into what made it great in my opinion; multiplayer

A friend and I (we call each other civ gods haha) would play for days against each other. I have so many fond memories of blitzing the russian front (I was always germans and he the russians) and being counter blitzed. I remember being so nervous that i could puke from anticipation of what he 'might' do. And he always managed to surprise me....and vice versa. So many glorious battles and bitter defeats..(i remember one time he assaulted warsaw with 73 tanks and lost, I only lost 2 units and of course had nearly 20 units in the city)
I remember leading a backwards german monarchy into war against the great russian republic, capturing the Statue of Liberty, becoming fundamentalist and advancing on his core cities. But enough of the memories...

Civ3 will continue to evolve over time into what will one day be remembered in a post just like this about how civ3 compares with civ4. I dont think you can seperate the 2, for their evolution are inextricably interwoven. Who knows what the future holds, so we should relish this glorious prize of civ3 and remember it well.

 

[Special_O]

I installed civ2, looked at the graphics and knew I'd never play it.
I'd go blind looking at the horrible pixels.

Civ3 is decent, but boring.

 

[Angelic_Tyrant]

With Civ games you have to be patient or you will find it boring, in it's own way it's unique from all other games. In my view the graphics didn't matter with civ2, it was the gameplay that made it great

 

[Cyc]

i have been married to civ2 for years...now civ3 is a great girlfriend.

 

[Rob Lindsey]

I'd have to say that Civ III is by far the superior Civ game. The improvements over Civ II are massive: strategic and luxury resources, improved graphics (obviously), much (much) better diplomatic procedures and trade negociations, unique civ abilities and units, a more balanced and realistic tech tree, and (in my opinion) much more engaging and realistic wars and other military operations.

I'm not saying that Civ III is without its bugs and irritations. No multiplayer and ridiculous waiting times between turns, among other things. And what about some unrealistic aspects of the game? The scarcity of iron, for example. Most (admittedly not all) late ancient and medieval cultures had access to iron for smithing, so why do the Indians and Americans possess a worldwide monopoly in my current game? No one seems to have a problem with that, but it sure boils MY blood.

Despite all that, Civ II simply can't compare. I played it at a mate's house last week and it felt so tired and limited. The (extreme) long-term potential of Civ III simply outstrips its predecessor by a long shot. That is, when Civ III begins to have scenarios available...

:soldier: :tank: :soldier:

 

[Zouave]

Civ 2 was and is a Classic game that had legs for five years and that people were still playing when Civ 3 came out.

Within a month after Civ 3 came out people were posting about when Civ 4 would appear! So much for legs.

Civ 3 does not play as well, is not as much fun, is not as interesting, is a big disappointment considering how good it could have been, has a pathetic mod, lots of bugs, horrible patches, etc.

The lack of Cheat Mode and scenario building also make it a failure.

BTW, the fact that Civ 2, a game FIVE YEARS older than Civ 3, can still get 31% of the vote in this poll proves to me what a flop Civ 3 is.

 

[Rob Lindsey]

Your last bit was well said, Zouave, I have to admit. I think the great debate over this poll is the result of the way we interpret the question. I, for one, see it as asking 'look at these two games. Which one would you prefer to play now?'. Others (the Civ II fanatics) I think would be answering what impact these games have made in advancing the concept of Civ-style games. Put simply, was this game ahead of it's time, would you consider it a classic, and the such. I reckon that this is why nearly a third voted for Civ II. And in this respect, I totally agree with these Civ II nuts.

Civ I, while I never played it, just watched it, got me addicted to the Civ series. I played Civ II for years (ahh, the memories!), and would still play it if I didn't have Civ III around. But, as I said before, it is OLD, DATED, and lacks the extra features and aspects of Civ III. Now, on to other Civ II-bashing points.

The cheat mode in Civ II was NOT a good thing. The knowledge that I could change any little thing that I didn't like tended to ruin the challenge of the game. At first, the trick was to resist the temptation, of course, but the novelty of it wore off on me quite quickly anyway.
Civ III's LESS interesting? Zouave, what are you on about? Different ways of winning diversify strategy, there's more units, more intelligent AI, strategic and luxury resources and other things give the player more options to play with against greater challenges. This is a THINKING game! Yes, these make Civ III a longer game, but also a MORE interesting game because you're forced to think, rather than churn out tanks and stealth bombers (unless you play like I do!). I guess it depends on how you play.
Um, Zouave. Yes, I also played Civ II up 'till Civ III came out. But that was only because Civ III hadn't came out yet!
I have to admit, you're right about the bugs, and especially about the lack of a scenario builder.
Totally agree with the last bit from Neo Guderian about the eventual evolution of Civ III.

:soldier: :soldier: :tank: :soldier: :soldier:

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I almost cried when i played Civ3
I was fanatical playing Civ and Civ2
Deity mode for me on Civ2 is way too easy, they need another level again that is harder.
But Civ3 is pathetic. It is unbelievable annoying being limited in how many cities you can have with Civ3 because of stupid corruption
Id have empires with over 100million people in Civ2 and theres no way in hell i could do that in Civ3 its just too fustrating
your forced to use military tactics and just destroy cities, its boring and lame
bring on Civ4 and hope this time they get it right
Oh and why dont they make they the every turn in MP games real time? Like the year 4000bc is real time when everyone is finished moving turns and clicked complete, then it goes to next year and so on
It would speed up mp sooooooo much. And i cant see why it cant be done

 

[dragontrainer]

Best Sid game = Alpha Centauri.

 

[GaryNemo]

I agree more or less with Zouave and Blitzkrieg. Civ III is terrible. What's the point of building a mine if it all goes to corruption?

I like fighting over the Iron and such, and the new Support Concept does save a little time, but with all the bugs, corruption and other baggage, they're not worth it!

And the Rules Editor. Maybe I just don't understand it -- but I can't seem to fix the rules while a game is running. So I plow on, hoping it gets better, with Rules where I tried to change the Courthouse into something like Forbidden Palace - but screwed it up. I'll have months tied up in a game that doesn't really fix what was most important. Then when I go to make a better Rules file for my next game, I'll have to start over, and I might miss something I had gotten right in my current Rules.

Sorry to say this, but I think the useability problems with the Rules Editor, the Install copying corrupt files and not knowing it, all the problems with DirectX people report -- it seems like they relied on too many junior programmers for this game.
Our computers play earlier Civs, StarCraft, Diablo II, Worms, Blittzen Chess, you name it, but I had to add memory for Civ III, upgrade Direct X etc, and Civ III is still a pain.
My son gave up after one game - two weeks of corruption.

And there are other foolish ideas in addition to the corruption. Why can't I benefit from roads in enemy territory? Even if I build my own, they don't work. Since I also can't heal by sitting there, and the Catapults are a joke, capturing a city is very tedious.

In Civ I, they got the Terrain View right. Even Civ II blew that. If the Game Designers read Sun Tzu "The Art of War" and Julius Caesar's "Commentaries on War" (required reading for all generals, antiquity thru the present), it might help. Certainly they should stop trusting MicroSoft modules and hype.

And the graphics. People are so proud of the CIv III graphics. Now I must Right Click all over the screen, my "Advisors" can't seem to make a proper map or report for me to study. For example, In Civ II you can "See at a glance" the terrain resources: the graphic matches the resources. In Civ III, there may be extra production or commerce, but the same graphic. Also, not seeing stacks vs single units is absurd. And in the zoom mode, it is sometimes difficult to see the active unit. In a turn based game, this is a serious flaw.

I'll keep trying, but I feel the few problems I have taken the time to mention above are extremely serious -- they affect the game play disastrously.

Firaxis - How about a CivIIB? I'm a professional programmer, an intellectual, an old rich guy (like many others), and I could help. Keep the game nearly exactly the same, fix the territory diplomacy bugs, and improve the AI. We'd all buy a new Civ IIB, you'd win, we'd all win.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Civ 2- I can't even look at it's cheezy graphics after seeing the Civ 3 ones. Nevertheless, when I think about how many hours I enjoyed each game, Civ 2 is the clear winner. Not because I had it longer - I only started playing Civ last June.

Civ 2's great features are what makes it stand miles above it's successor:

Fundamentalism - the only way to simulate the USA's current "happy country, big economy, at war with the world"

Leonardo's Workshop - you mean, I have to pay for this now?

Spy Unit vs. expensive spies that never work - the spy unit, in addition to bringing back fond memories of GI Joe's The Baronness, made espionage an integral part of most games, and not just a wasted small wonder gauranteed to start wars...

Cannons, Howitzers, and Bombers That Kill - just like real cannons, howitzers, and bombers. Think of what Afghanistan would look like today if our bombs only put them down to one hit point...

And that is before going on and on about MGE's ability to play online, ability to edit the graphics of units without being a genius, ability to start games in any era, and the whole host of scenarios.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Cannons, Howitzers, and Bombers That Kill - just like real cannons, howitzers, and bombers. Think of what Afghanistan would look like today if our bombs only put them down to one hit point...

Traditional bombardment has historically not been successful at destroying military units. If it were, then we would not have bothered with infantry in either world war. In Afghanistan, we used much more powerful weapons than depicted in Civ3, but still required alliance troops to take and hold ground.

If there is no infantry present, then enemy infantry disperses. Only by confronting them with troops on the ground can you force them to mass and be subject to successful bombardment.

 

[Michael York]

For five years civ2 wrecked successively defeated dozens of other computer games. I had it and the first expansion pack installed on not only my computer but also both of my aunts' pcs so that I could play it sometimes for days without reprise. Untill I got civ3 back in october, I did not think that any game could ever be good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as civ2. Now Civ 2 is my second favorite game. Civ3 adds so many more dimensions to the civ family. (and adds more dead technology lines like civ1) I get extremely pissed at civ3 for three reasons: my state of the art laptop (was when civ3 came out) takes for ever to run v1.17f &1.21f games, UNIT START LOCATIONS, and the scenarios.
One other thing. I don't like the lack ability to change the rules mid game. I enjoyed adding additional units late in the game like jets and Led Zeppelin which I could not fit in with my ancient units like prostitutes and the elite legions. It is also more of a pain to edit the rules. There are various things that I do not like such as deathly slow mech inf and worthless marines. In civ2, the mechs were fine and when I fixed the marines, all of my saved games were affected.
Civ2, 15 out of 5 stars Civ3, 4.5 out of 5 stars
I prefer civ3

 

[Zouave]

Yea, Civ 2 had those LEGS because it was fun, gave the appearance of realism (to an extent), had a Cheat Mode, didn't take too long between turns, had Scenario-building, etc.

I still have Civ 2 scenarios I will be getting to.

Civ 2 had legs like a giraffe.

Annoying buggy Civ 3 WILL HAVE LEGS LIKE A TORTOISE - real short. And for good reason.

 

[Genghis Janeway]

I HOPE the problems civ3 has are fixed in PTW. P.S. Before I edited, the post here was my idiot sister's. For those who were offended, I apologize.

 

[Concona]

Civ 3 rules the roasters, or something

1) the graphics are the bomb
2) mobalizing is the bomb
3) the video`s and the palace building are the bomb